Friends, conservatives, and Republicans:
We are in trying times today. As Thomas Paine put it before the Revolution, “these are the times that try men’s souls.” And such times demand our resolve to face problems as well as the duties to our country. In doing so, we’ve been presented with few options: on one hand is socialism du jour, as evidenced in the Democratic Party and unanimously confirmed in their first debate. On the other, we see it in lesser doses in the establishment Republican Party.
The people have spoken loudly in our season of discontent. Every political power is now deemed either suspect or incredible — seen only as gatekeepers to tired, recycled ideas from over 50 yrs of experiments concluding with one failure after another. We’ve seen, felt, tasted and digested what these tired ideas mean and what they offer.
Are we now reduced to accepting these ideas as mainstream for the greatest bastion of freedom the world has offered? Are we now to cede defeat and crawl into a corner forced to fight our way out of one failure after another? Or are we going to choose the high point and seize this moment of sober reality to finally stand on time-tested principles that built this great country from a European annex? Do we salvage Constitutional limits and validate time-honored principles; or do we stand with all the nations that succumbed to the socialistic, euphoric mirage?
As Reagan spoke of in ’64, this is a time of choosing.
We have two separate choices, in as much as politicians and the establishment will say we have a limited choice. Our choices are not ascribed for us by some political elites — hard as they try — but are reserved for us a once free people. Should we preserve that freedom and choice; or cast it off to those who presume to “know better” on our behalf? Who gave them the power to write our future? Look at the record of entrenched establishment.
Two elections ago, the Democrats said ‘hope and change’ was a choice. We found that hope in their change was no choice at all and offered no hope; but an authoritarian dictate from on high in Washington. While we fret and mourn over what has become of our system of government, they’ve insisted all along that we have less and less choice with every election. Until we have none. They’ve seen to it this far, with their preferred candidates on both sides, that we have little to no choice.
On the left, they strive for the most Marxist leaders they can find, be they from ivory towers or the ranks of political radicalism that’s run amok for years. On the right, we are sautéed in mediocrity, while conservatives are branded extreme and instructed to tone down our choices — especially on candidates — to acceptable ones. But acceptable to whom?
While some would say we have already made our choice and now must live with it, I disagree. Do they tell slaves of despotic regimes that they have no choice? Do they tell them to just get used to the status quo then find some scraps to benefit from? No. But in this country, they scold us that such prescriptions are wise to accept. If we have the resolve to do anything of value, for posterity and ourselves, it must be to break these self-imposed chains of slavery we struggled under for years.
That resolve is the only hope we have for the change we desperately need. Their hope and change in 2008 was more of the Washington-run, top-down despotism we’ve suffered under for decades. It showed its face soon after Reagan, and built upon their federal approach on everything from growing crops to what kind of healthcare we should have. Now it has gun control in its sights, sees Climate Change as our greatest threat, and immigration as a doorway to perpetual political power — one-way political power.
And these no-choice politics have come with a heavy cost and an even greater political one. Go along to get along is the strategy, make no waves, compromise is the bomb. Mediocrity is the king, queen and stalemate. We now face the enemy and as Pogo says, “and the enemy is us.”
We have a rendezvous with “we the people.”
The descent to this point has taken years, but the fastest decline has been over the last 8 years. Change has come over us like a sinister fog. During this time, they made every attempt to reach as far into the future as possible to saddle us with the irreversible tyranny of one man, holding our future hostage to all the negative effects.
We saw it in Obamacare, in the Keystone pipeline, in environmental policy, in the IRS targeting, in EPA regulations. Even in foreign engagements and the Iran deal that put our future security on the line for an evasive treaty no one liked, and details we weren’t privy to.
The question now facing us is can we find an ally in ourselves to repel this spiral, to lay claim to the tried and true that made this nation great? Can we find enough satisfaction in doing so to drown out their whining criticism we’ve grown accustomed to? Can we project ourselves forward on the will to right the wrongs and record?
This is the mission …should we accept it.
We passed the fork in the road way back. Do we blaze a new trail to the main road or continue on this highway to ruin? We have a mandate: to save ourselves and posterity from impending doom. The odds have been slanted against us.
The current administration has done its level best to commit future administrations to their schemes and dreams of now. Or their “urgency of now”. They’ve reached far past their own political terms to chain our future to their agenda. We’ve seen the arrogance of power. And it’s ugly.
But this onslaught assault has not come just from the Left. We’ve had many in this Party that would rather settle for an ever-evolving progressive agenda than stand the ground.
In ’64, Ronald Reagan asked a provocative question: “But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help?” Sometimes I too wonder. Democrats have continually said we need to help this or that group; that the rich need to pay their fair share(yet to be determined), that we are compassionless, that social justice needs to correct the errors of our system and our past.
Note, they don’t mind saying their new system has errors, just as long as they get to apply their gratuitous “solutions.” Democrats don’t offer solutions only more problems. Then we’ll have to fix their solutions. A hamster on a treadmill has a more rational purpose.
We were told the Affordable Care Act would save people money. They also said it would save our budget money. According to the GAO’s report, it found:
“For 10 fictitious applicants, GAO tested application and enrollment controls for obtaining subsidized health plans available through the federal Health Insurance Marketplace (Marketplace) (for New Jersey and North Dakota) and two selected state marketplaces (California and Kentucky).
Although 8 of the 10 fictitious applications failed the initial identity-checking process, all 10 were subsequently approved by the federal Marketplace or the selected state marketplaces. Four applications used Social Security numbers that, according to the Social Security Administration (SSA), have never been issued, such as numbers starting with “000” Other applicants had duplicate enrollment or claimed their employer did not provide insurance that meets the minimum essential coverage.” GAO
Their report concluded:
“Our undercover testing for the 2015 coverage year found that the health-care marketplace eligibility determination and enrollment process remains vulnerable to fraud.”
So they admit it is failing and open to fraud. Surely, a fix is in the works. Not only is eligibility and enrollment plagued with failure, what about cost? Well, we’ve now had a 13% jump in healthcare spending since 2014.
They said in promoting ObamaCare: “ObamaCare decreases the deficit and debt with cost controlling provisions and taxes, but subsidies, protections, and healthcare spending may result in more debt over the long term if no further changes are made.”
We made their “changes” and now the Government spent 936 billion on healthcare programs while spending 882 billion on Social Security, by comparison.
The lesson here is things often don’t work as government plans or says it will. How’s all that savings working out for you?
So the CBO said in 2015: “The federal government spent more on health care than on Social Security for the first time ever.”
Another thing they constantly repeated is that people would like it once enacted. Well, the enrollment expectation for 2016 is down by 7 million from expected enrollments.
The CBO now estimates 13 million people will buy insurance in 2016 under Obamacare. That’s down from the previous estimate of 20 million.
Then, their talk shifts. They say Obamacare would cost more to repeal it than to keep it. Would it? They keep telling us to look at the long term. What good is the long term if the short term bankrupts us?
According to The Hill:
“Though it predicts fewer customers, the budget office says the number of people receiving subsidies will be higher than expected. About 11 million people are expected to receive subsidies this year, compared to 8 million people in 2015.”
And while healthcare spending has grown more slowly in the last several years, the CBO is projecting that per-person spending on healthcare programs “will grow more rapidly than it has in recent years.” The cost of subsidies alone is expected to increase by $18 billion in 2016, reaching a total of $56 billion, and doubling that within a decade.
So that long term is not looking so good. But it was never built to be proven on results. All the lies we were fed to pass it would validate that. Remember, if you like your plan you can keep it? Now if you don’t like Obamacare we have to keep it anyway. If it was problematic to enact it, they wanted to make sure it is as problematic to repeal – despite its cost.
Pattern of deception
They made their “Iran deal” on a similar premise. It is far more costly and dangerous than they told us it was. And we saw the negative consequences almost immediately, which cannot be undone so quickly. They said that sanctions could be slapped right back on, but again not so quickly or easily as they promised. Still it was a treaty they pushed through under executive authority.
Then there was the executive immigration action. Obama claimed he didn’t have the authority, and then turned around and did it anyway. He claimed to be something of a Constitutional expert who taught the Constitution. Then he was slapped down in case after case for unconstitutional actions.
The justice department was held in contempt by Congress. The IRS played executive-branch politics. Remember the “not a smidgen of corruption” and the deleted hard drives? The administration defied the American people. EPA was writing law. On the eve of reelection, we had a terrorism attack evading all accountability, at all levels — a video snafu we were told.
Now, this year, we had the first self-admitted socialist running for office on the Democrat side. He claims that raising your taxes will save you money in his ideal system.
You see, the conventional wisdom is lowering taxes will spur economic growth. But raising taxes is the means to the Left. They want to raise taxes in order to grow government. Of course once having grown the government, those new taxes still won’t be enough to support it. So then they’ll promise more government growth in order to raise your taxes more. Remember the hamster and treadmill?
Why should that surprise us when even the Vice President informed us in 2009 that we have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt? Get it? Biden said:
“You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt? The answer is yes, that’s what I’m telling you.”
So we find bankruptcy is actually a spending deficit.
Now in this same time of vote harvesting on the Left, the other candidate declared that, despite jeopardizing our national security, she did “nothing illegal.” Well, if she did nothing illegal or wrong, then something is really wrong. The same Democrat frontrunner equivocated her 11 hours of Congressional testimony to the 13 hours of self-sacrifice trying to save lives and our interests from being abandoned by the administration, engulfed in election politics — which resulted in 4 dead Americans, including our Ambassador.
The same frontrunner, when questioned if she still believes in a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, asked a reporter “don’t you?” She said they (VRC) are even better funded now, and apparently more accomplished. Well, if such a group were even more committed, then wouldn’t it have the indictment of Hillary as a feather in its hat by now? Never mind that conspiracy she herself has been engaged in for 25 years to worm her way into the White House, under whatever pretensions it takes.
Congress is still investigating her actions from her tenure as Sec of State. No, not because of the VRC but because of her evasive cover up for years. At this time, the FBI is still grinding its way through Hillary’s server vs. national security investigation. But she told us that no, they are not investigating her and reiterated that she did nothing wrong; that her predecessors had set the precedent for her private server arrangement. So you, too, can work at the highest level in government and install your own private server. Ridiculous. If it is nothing illegal, then maybe it ought to be?
Hillary announced she was an experienced progressive. I think we know that. But then she laid claim to a term some fellow travelers have given her, a “moderate.” She says she will gladly take that label. Which is it: is she a moderate or a real progressive? Well, now progressives are moderates.
Then we had the revelation from Kerry in the State department that he expects some of the Iran-deal money to be used to fund terrorism. So now we are funders of terrorism. Are we seeing a pattern here? He also implied that the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo was justified by some logic that escapes me right now. Am I hearing right? Of course it’s my ears, or our ears, that are the problem. So their security agreement with Iran is a giant windfall for Iran. Who knew? We did. Yet it gave Iran what they hadn’t had before, the right to enrich. And enrich they will, in more than one way. They’re also giving Iran lots of money. Check and check.
Folks, the list could go on and on, with one void of reason and logic after another. Maybe it is a black hole they are constructing that soon in the future will swallow us up?
Vote harvesting it is. But let’s not lose sight of the consequences of this “hope and change.” It’s a moving target. Their faith-based campaign has produced fruit. When Obama said he would fundamentally transform our system, he also wanted to fundamentally transform the way we look at politics. I often wonder how Democrats can even believe in all this “change you can believe in?”
Much has been made about this thing called “mainstream” for over a decade. Apparently socialism is mainstream now. In the Iowa primaries we discovered in a poll that 43% of Democrats polled describe themselves as socialists, and 38% capitalists. Mainstreaming complete.
You see, on the left they’re expected to elect the most progressive candidate they can. But on the right, we are told we must heed the moderate voices. Well great, now that they’ve defined what “moderate” is – progressive light. Yet the one word they have not revised and extended is conservative. So far it has not been corrupted.
Taxes and raising them is important to Democrats, as Bernie reminded us. He wants to tax Wall Street and big banks. He wants to raise taxes on middle class to save them money. Obama wants to enact a 10-dollar tax on each barrel of oil. Then Democrats and some Republicans have advocated for a gas(fuel) tax for years now between .25 and .65 per gallon. Gives new meaning to flex-fuels. (ha)
They think this is the perfect time to raise taxes with prices dropping. Roads and infrastructure is always the excuse. A lower price is always an opportunity for a tax.
Is there anything they haven’t found to tax? So its climate change all right, and taxagedon is in the works. Scorched earth. How long can this go on?
And when asked about their spending plans they say, “sure we pay for it.” But we all pay, and pay, every single day. They don’t have elections on the left…. they have spendathons. And people line up at their feeding troughs.
These sunshine patriots tax in the good times and tax in the bad times. They’re ‘fair weather offenders.’So this is the environment that we have.
The question is how do you break up the syndicate? It’s not enough to rename it: Marxism, communism, socialism, progressive, Democratic socialism. Names are not its objective, results are. And while we’ve seen the results time after time, they insist we must do more of it not less.
Let’s turn the page to what Americans really believe in, to the values that got us through some of the worst times. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness were not slogans. But we became a slogan nation with empty “hope and change.” We replaced words with soliloquy, clichés and sound bites. Oh “it’s the economy, stupid”… and we would be stupid for thinking it really is the economy.
When ideas don’t pan out the way they promised, they tell us it is just a communication problem and we don’t understand correctly. But people do understand and they don’t like it. They know we cannot continue this false “hope and change,” as Hillary says we must.
The problems are not only synonymous with Democrats. In election after election we are told this election will address our very real problems. So we sent them to Washington only to be told, again, the next election will be critical. They are elected to campaign for the next election. And nothing is done. Remember the hamster and treadmill?
Others in Washington say they will co-opt them when they get there. So if they are not complicit in the anti-constitutional malaise, they are complacent to the point of going along to get along. “We can’t” is their chief response.
Now here we are faced with another decision.
But this time it is not to be just another faux deciding point. This time the people have decided it is going to matter or there will be a price to pay. Our survival and posterity is at stake. We were told to remain perpetually patient while nothing was done. Politics as usual has been the exclusive item on the menu. People were not satisfied. The powers that be have not been great at picking our candidates or our leaders. We can’t afford their choice.
It’s time for an ultimatum from “We the People”. It’s time to put commonsense back in politics and our election process. But can we?
RightRing | Bullright