lame (3)

AMERICA’S DECLINE?

Looking around the Internet and reading, I find myself getting more and more depressed. My American dream seems to be lost. No longer is my country free to be the greatest power on the earth.

4063925977?profile=original

Watching America’s decline is not a pretty sight. Our government is corrupt beyond my wildest imagination. There are children growing up without knowledge and adults who think all is fine because they, themselves, have not been affected.

 

Healthcare seems to be a joke these days. Not many can afford a good plan on the O-Care site. Then, of course, there are those who cannot see the doctors they were used to going to.

 

Food is at an all time high and I see that when I go shopping that people are buying less and less.

4063925917?profile=original

Foreign affairs have reached the depths of darkness. As I watch videos of ‘Terrorists’ (I believe that they must be bad people because they are doing very evil deeds), killing and riding in and on top of vehicles with guns and shouting while killing others. There are families of people running to cross borders and flee from evil that is inevitably coming towards them.   

 

America used to save people who were being attacked for presumably no other cause but to take-over a country for power, religious preference and oil.

4063926052?profile=original

Iraq was in a neutral state when America maintained a presence. Now, under the O-Regime, all is lost. The world is getting deeper and deeper in debt and countries are no longer safe to travel to.

 

The only hope that ‘We the People’ have here is for a majority in the Senate in November and to retain the majority in the House. Maybe then we will have a ‘Lame Duck’ president. What am I fooling myself with? Only a ‘Lame Duck’ president would be playing golf while the world around him is falling apart.

 4063926073?profile=original

What have the people of America done? They voted in pure evil and some don’t even know it. Is there hope for my country? I don’t know anymore.

Daveda Gruber

Read more…

OLD GUARD REPUBLICAN FORMER REP. STEVE LATOURETTE RESORTS TO CHILDISH NAME CALLING 

This is the transcript from the Chris Wallace show to day on Fox News.

WALLACE: The Conservative Political Action Conference held its annual meeting this eke and if you can believe it, a presidential straw poll for 2016.

Here are the results -- Tea Party favorite, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, won with 25 percent. Senator Marco Rubio was a close second at 23 percent. And former presidential candidate Rick Santorum, a distant third, at 8 percent.

The CPAC meeting highlighted the disagreement over the best way for the party to broaden its base.

Matt Kibbe is president of FreedomWorks, a leader of the Tea Party movement.

Former Congressman Steve LaTourette is head of the Republican Main Street Partnership.

And, gentlemen, welcome to "Fox News Sunday."

LATOURETTE: Thanks.

MATT KIBBE, FREEDOMWORKS: Thanks for having me.

WALLACE: Congressman LaTourette, during the lame duck session in December, you talked about the 40 to 50 chuckleheads -- your phrase -- in the House, who are blocking senator -- rather, Speaker Boehner, from making a budget deal with the president.

What is it about the Tea Party freshmen that make them chuckleheads?

FORMER REP. STEVE LATOURETTE: I don't think I would say it's all of Tea Party freshmen. I'd say it's 40 or 50 in 112th Congress that seemed more interested in voting no and going home than governing and that comment was made after "Plan B." And you have to recognize, Chris --

WALLACE: And "Plan B" was to just raise taxes on people making over a million dollars.

LATOURETTE: Yes. And it was the opening gambit and would have given the speaker the opportunity to go to the White House and over to the Senate and say, "Here, I have a package, and, let's continue our negotiations."

When you take it down, as the speaker said in our meeting after that, you send him to the White House naked. He's got no armor. He's got no tools.

WALLACE: Well, looking forward, Mr. Kibbe, what is it about the Tea Party and its views on spending and taxes that members of the Republican establishment, like Congressman LaTourette, don't get?

KIBBE: Well, you have to take a step back and understand the only reason we are talking about a balanced budget, the only reason that we're having a serious debate about $16-plus trillion in debt, is because of the Tea Party class in 2010 and, the folks we had in 2012. You have to stop this process, this bipartisan process, of just kicking the can down the road, creating these artificial crises on New Year's Eve and say, let's put ideas on the table, let's stop playing this game.

And that's what we have done.

And we're never going to fix the problem just by pretending that the process of bipartisanship somehow gets to real problems, because that's how we got here. This crisis was created by both Republicans and Democrats not willing to make tough choices.

LATOURETTE: I'll tell you, that flies in the face of what we did in the 1990s, Bill Clinton was the president, John Kasich was the budget chair, and, Newt Gingrich was the speaker, and we created the Balanced Budget Act in 1997.

And quite frankly, it was during the Bush years of spending, multiplied now by the Obama years that we have this mess.

And at the end of the day, my difficulty with the Tea Party freshmen is not the true passion that they bring to this. They are an important part of the Republican Party. My difficulty is at the end of the day, you have to govern. Just saying no doesn't get you anything, and it creates these false crises.

And you can get past the false crises if you work something out. And it doesn't mean surrendering principle. It doesn't mean becoming a Democrat or a RINO or a DINO. It means working together in a way you get 60 percent of what you want.    KIBBE: Well, you've got to go back, because I don't think the Tea Party has created the budget crisis. We came in with our members, and tried to do something about it. I remember a day when April 15th is when the House and Senate had to pass the budget resolution.

I remember when they had to reconcile the 13 appropriations bills, I remember a day when the president actually had to introduce his budget, and today we don't do any of that stuff. And that's how we got to the $16 trillion.

And there is something rational about standing on the tracks and saying, you know, we can't do it this way anymore, we have to do it some other way.

LATOURETTE: Listen, if that was -- if that was the way these guys were operating, I'd be all for that.

But for instance, we couldn't get even -- I was an appropriator. We couldn't get our labor, health and human services bill, the biggest of the bills besides defense out, because three of our members would not support the chairman's mark. Now, that's not trying to solve the problem.

KIBBE: We'll get too weeds in here.

LATOURETTE: Sorry. But I'm telling you, you can't get it done. And, just voting no and then holding your nose and saying, boy, if it passes, then I can go home to my local Tea Party groups and say, "I voted no," that's ridiculous. That's what makes them chuckleheads.

WALLACE: Let me switch to another subject.

Mr. Kibbe, one of the recent splits in the party -- and we saw it in the last week, has been over national security. You backed Rand Paul's filibuster of the president's drone policy in the Senate. You also backed the sequester of across the board cuts even in the Pentagon.

But isn't one of the GOP's strengths with the American people that it's tough on national security?

KIBBE: Well, you can be fiscally responsible and tough on national security. I think it would be --

WALLACE: Well, the drone has nothing to do with fiscal issues. That's a --

(CROSSTALK)

KIBBE: Certainly. So there's two issues. One is about basic civil liberties and I think the new GOP reflected by Rand Paul's willingness to challenge the status quo in both the Republican and Democratic Parties, that's a healthy thing.

And, young people in particular, they are looking for leadership that's willing to challenge the idea that the government is always right. I think that's where we are, as well.

But on defense, and on, frankly, any budget, any program, any department of the federal government, let's all acknowledge that there is waste and things that need to be eliminated. And, a trimming of defense would be a very healthy thing.

And you have to put everything on the table. You can't say that this sacred cow cannot be touched. I think the GOP has made that mistake.

WALLACE: Congressman LaTourette, Rand Paul in his speech at CPAC talked about defense hawks like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, as stale and moss-covered. There is a war-weariness in the country. Should the Republican Party, and it's trying to grow the party and appeal to new voters, should it be pulling back on national defense?

LATOURETTE: Well, you know, I grew up in the era of the $800 hammer and $600 toilet seat. So, yes, there are efficiencies there.

But if you're looking to the Constitution for something that government is supposed to be involved in, it is defending the country.

And the sequestration was the most ham-handed way of dealing with things and we only got there because of the dysfunctions that exist, because the Democrats won't give an inch, and, you know, it's incumbent upon us to find the sweet spot. Boehner tried to do it with the president and the president isn't willing. But, we've got to find that sweet spot that includes the Pentagon.

WALLACE: But you said dysfunction and you kind of motioned in Mr. Kibbe's direction. Do you think the Tea Party is adding to the dysfunction in Washington?

LATOURETTE: No, not at all. I think the Tea Party is an important part of the coalition that is the Republican Party. But my difficulty with not necessarily Mr. Kibbe's group but others like his, is that there is some -- now some kind of litmus test what makes a good Republican or a bad Republican.

And the reason that we don't have a Republican president, today, in my opinion, is that we don't represent the whole country. We don't have one member of congress who is a Republican from the entire eastern sea coast. You get down to the Carolinas and Virginia. You can't govern the country unless you look like the country.

And so, I think they are an important part of the coalition but they are not the Republican Party. They are part of the Republican Party.

WALLACE: How do you respond to that? In a sense you may have energized the party, but you've also narrowed it?

KIBBE: Oh, I don't think so. If you look at CPAC, you look at the rock stars of the GOP, the next generation, the people we are excited about, these are Tea Party freshmen -- Rand Paul, Ron Johnson from a very purple, maybe blue state.

WALLACE: Ron Johnson?

KIBBE: Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania and, of course, Marco Rubio. We have brought diversity, we have brought energy and, most important, I think we brought ideas because we are color blind about all of this stuff.

But if you want to come to the Senate, come to the Congress and offer a plan to balance the budget, we're going to support you. Put your ideas on the table. That's what's lacking in the whole debate.

LATOURETTE: Well, I've got to say, that sadly what they've also got is Harry Reid as the majority leader continuing in the Senate. If you look at the Nevada race, Sharron Angle, if you look at Richard Mourdock in Indiana, if you look at -- I forget her name, the witch in Delaware.

WALLACE: Christine O'Donnell.

LATOURETTE: Thank you.

You -- we can have functional today, but for this litmus test that exists today --

WALLACE: There were a lot of establishment candidates, Republican candidates, who went down in this last election, too.

LATOURETTE: But they went down from the standpoint that they lost to Democrats. Unlike some of these -- Mr. Mourdock, for instance. I mean, we are supposed to wonder --

WALLACE: Richard Murdoch in Indiana.

LATOURETTE: Indiana. Why we don't have the women's vote in this country when we have a candidate suggesting that a child born as a result of rape is a gift from God? I'm not wondering why we don't have more women voting for Republicans.

WALLACE: But let me ask you about that and that's the last thing we're going to get into here, Karl Rove -- and he's going to be on the panel -- started something called the Conservative Victory Project to try to get into the primaries, to make sure that there are more electable Republicans, people that can win the primaries and that go on and win the general election.

Congressman LaTourette, you're about to start your own super PAC to promote electable candidates in Republican primaries.

LATOURETTE: Right.

WALLACE: Do you have any problem with that because I -- well, what do you -- first of all, why do you think that's wrong?

KIBBE: Well, I think the definition of electable is what we're debating and you look at who has been winning elections, it's been interesting, exciting, young, energetic people like Ted Cruz, like Marco Rubio. And I think if you apply this sort of establishment litmus test which tends to be biased for people that are already in office, you're not going to get that new energy. Would we have gotten Pat Toomey?

Remember, Karl Rove supported Arlen Specter as far back as 2004, against Pat Toomey, because the logic was Pat Toomey can't possibly win. Arlen Specter later flips party when it was convenient for him and became the 60th vote for Obamacare. So, I think we need to be careful about what it means to be electable.

Certainly, the Tea Party doesn't bat a thousand, but at least we're winning elections. We're bringing new people into the party. And we're not in a position where the Democrats can jam something through 60 votes in the Senate because of the Tea Party.

LATOURETTE: So, I've got to tell you, there is no litmus test at the Republican mainstream. I'm happy to have anybody who labels him or herself as a Republican and wants to represent the entire country.

We're not talking about electing the governor of South Carolina, or the governor of Texas, the governor of Utah. If we want to be a national party, we have to look like America. Today, we look like a bunch of we were a bunch of guys, white guys, from below the Mason- Dixon line.

WALLACE: So, how do you look more like America?

LATOURETTE: You have to begin to talk about issues in the way that I have to talk about issues.

For instance, I never read anything in my Republican playbook and I have been a Republican since the day I was born, that says that Republicans and trade unionists can't get along together, the carpenter, the operating engineer. But, somehow, this whole war on prevailing wages is now become a plank of the Republican Party? No, it's not.

And the same thing with the environment. I live on Lake Erie, we don't have to be opposed to everything that helps us get clean air and clean water. That's not a Republican test.

But if you look at the key votes that some of these groups are scoring, and 18 votes was scored by Mr. Kibbe's group out of a thousand that took place, last year. It's not -- you can make -- it's like a poll, you can make it look any way you want to.

WALLACE: All right. You get the last word.

KIBBE: I think if you look at the new Republican Party, the party that stands for something, you look at names like Tim Scott, and Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and Raul Labrador and Justin Amash. Mia Love almost got through.

This is the new future and it's based on ideas. We don't care about the color of your skin.

WALLACE: We're going to have to leave it there. But, to be continued.

Mr. Kibbe, Congressman LaTourette, thank you both for coming in.

We'll stay on top of this debate. And, in addition, up next, we'll continue this conversation with our Sunday group. What does the GOP need to do to attract more voters?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, R-ARIZ.: If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms.

SEN. RAND PAUL, R-KY.: The GOP of old has grown stale and moss-covered.

Read more…

Lame Duck to Quack Vociferously
after November Elections


Rajjpuut's own analysis and a few stray comments taken as hearsay from friends thrice removed quoting blue-dog Democrats who refused to be quoted on the record, in other words nothing a real journalist can take to the bank, have created a potential nightmare scenario for this country. It's all very iffy, nevertheless, you should know . . . . It appears that Obama and his huge majorities in the house and senate aim to "lie low" in the coming months rather than risking alienation of any more voters. After the election, however, things will get lively as the Dems ignoring the standard "gentleman's agreement" that lame duck congresses never deal with controversial matters ignore propriety and instead aim to force cap and trade, union card check, comprehensive immigration "reform," and virtual unionization of police, firefighters and other first responders upon the nation. In effect, the inglorious result of his first half-term will be that Obama will have made the Constitution and congress as well, almost totally irrelevant. If a voting path is created for 12-20 million illegal aliens who will presumably vote Democrat over Republican by 85%-15%, he will have become a virtual dictator for life . . . something even FDR couldn't do.

Another Independence Day has come and gone. We’ve watched our fireworks exhibitions maybe enjoyed a few relatively harmless, but probably illegal firecrackers and modest personal fireworks such as roman candles and even brandished a few sparklers about – never, however, in our history has it been so vital to remember and to understand what exactly the Fourth of July is all about or, by extension, to come to a firm mental grasp of the concepts enlivening our American Constitution. Our Founding Fathers did an excellent job of creating a government for the thirteen entities, the original colonies made into states, and for the numerous individuals inhabiting them.

One might be tempted to say, the Founding Fathers did the most nearly perfect job that’s ever been done of creating a government . . . however, we are surrounded by legions of those who don’t just doubt the near perfection of the job as many of them do, but literally legions who doubt it was even a good job. Some of them, mostly covertly, would consider “Das Kapital” by Marx as formulating a much more apt and perfect solution to this question as to what kind of government is best for mankind. Of course there are all manner of socialists around too, who would argue they’re merely talking about some needed, harmless and over-all beneficial “tweaking” of the Document in question. All of these individuals and groups are what’s called “progressives.” Progressives see the U.S. Constitution as an outdated and flawed document and see the need to “progress” beyond both the word and the spirit of the Constitution. Should we? Are they correct? Is it outdated? Is it seriously flawed?

The continuum of human government runs from anarchy (total freedom, total lack of responsibility, total lack of government, each man for himself) to totalitarianism (zero freedom, 100% duty; 100% government involvement in every aspect of existence, absolute power concentrated in a central government and thus every man exists only at the pleasure of the state and only to benefit the state). The thirteen colonies had just had two very recent experiences with unsatisfactory government . . . in the first instance the autocratic rule of King George III over the colonies went too far to the left, too far toward totalitarianism for their tastes. But when the British were kicked out, the loose pact created by the thirteen states under the Articles of Confederation was unsatisfactory in its closeness to anarchy.

Within reason, the colonials accepted the proposition that the government which governed (that is interfered with and coerced the citizens) the least was the best form of government. The Founding Fathers, “in order to create a more perfect union,” came up with a Republic in which the peoples’ representatives would be chosen by popular vote, democratic process . . . but as they were building a Constitution for the new government, the central government looked a little too potentially malicious and powerful for many tastes and so the powers of that central entity was dramatically curtailed by the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution (ensuring such personal freedoms as freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, right to bear arms, freedom from ex post facto laws, right to due process, etc., etc., and most importantly the 10th Amendment stating that except for the seventeen explicitly mentioned powers and responsibilities of the federal government ALL other power was reserved for the individual states and the individual citizens of the Republic.

Since 1901, the succession to the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt has marked mostly a succession of progressive presidents intent upon expanding their own powers and the powers of the centralized federal government over the states and the citizens. Obviously some good has been done, the National Park System seems, on balance a good thing, that is NOT the question. It’s a question of progressive aims. There’s no provision in the Constitution for the federal government owning huge tracts of land, but beside the national parks today, the majority of several western states is actually owned by the federal government and not the states themselves. The congress or the people could have passed an amendment to the Constitution expanding the federal powers to include, national parks and perhaps another allowing the central government to own such huge expanses of a given state’s land . . . but chances are the second one would NOT have passed, and perhaps the national parks as well . . . but it should have been the people’s choice yea or nay.

Teddy, in many ways seems beneficent, but certainly he was progressive to the core. Certain presidents wielded their progressiveness far more malevolently: Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and to a lesser extent Bill Clinton and George W. Bush fit that category. Even these did some good things. FDR’s CCC camps come to mind; the Civil Rights Act under Johnson come to mind. The legacy of these progressive "giants" is crushing, today's $14 TRillion national debt pales in comparison to the $110 TRillion in unfunded liabilities attached to Social Security, Medicare, and the federal side of Medicaid . . . of course, Welfare is never attached to this bill, but it certainly should be . . . malevolence surely . . . and now comes cap and trade and the bankrupting of the american coal industry and the skyrocketing electricity prices and the 67% inflation it alone will create, not even talking about general inflation of the money supply by 14X under Obama.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/03/video-of-obama-coal-bankruptcy/?print=1
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/03/obamas-energy-plan-bankupt-coal-power-plants-skyrocketing-electricity-rates/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece
http://www.theproletariatsnews.com/2008/11/special-report-do-we-need-a-new-fdr-to-save-us-from-depression/
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html

Perhaps we can credit the other four ultra-progressives and men like Clinton and Bush II as being only misguided and truly having good intentions, not so with Barack Obama. From the first days in office, Barack Obama has been poison for the American Dream and his own dream** of a Marxist America has been clear for all to see, unfortunately, the mainstream media has abetted his efforts and the couch potato class has been too busy with their reality shows and sitcoms -- perhaps America deserves the communism he brings -- personally, Rajjpuut deserves anything but . . . so, wake up America!
Ya'all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut

** besides the evidence of his origins and point of view from the politico.com link above, and the first Obama autobiography "Dreams from My Father," it's worth noting that every scrap of coverage at "Russia Today" and from CPUSA (our own national communist daily) is 100% positive towards Obama, what are the odds?
Read more…