At this point I doubt there is a living soul in the U.S. that hasn’t heard the name Sandra Fluke or the word slut more than a few times this week. The firestorm over comments from conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh has been burning for almost a week now. Mr. Limbaugh’s comments, while not exactly politically correct, have helped bring this fight to the forefront and we must capitalize on this opportunity to expose the true agenda of the left.
Sandra Fluke is not the issue upon which we need to focus. Sandra Fluke is nothing more than a political tool of the left to try to portray the GOP as the “He-Man Woman Hater Club” Washington, DC chapter. Ms. Fluke calls herself an “activist for women’s reproductive rights” which is nothing more than a code word for “Anti-Catholic Activist.” How ironic is it that Rep. Nancy Pelosi, a catholic herself, invited Ms. Fluke to speak before congress on reproductive rights? Ms. Fluke not only knew of Georgetown's policy regarding birth control, she purposely applied to the school in hopes of fighting their rights as a religious organization. Nor is Rush Limbaugh the issue. Rush is a very public figure that the left has been demonizing for decades. His brash “in your face” style of making a point has made him an easy target for the left. The left knows an uninformed public will believe the headlines and they have used this to mislead independents and Americans that don’t follow politics as closely as some of us.
Sandra Fluke is nothing more than the newest victim to use as a poster-child for the left. The left stream media has learned the effectiveness of parading a victim in front of the cameras. It’s the only way they can portray conservatives as the “bad guy” in their twisted and dishonest game of political theater. This tactic has been used by the left back farther than most of us can remember. However, there has been a surge in this type of attack during the three years of the Obama Presidency. Think back about every attack on conservatives under the Obama administration:
1. Health Care Debate:
Victim: Sick Children and Seniors
Bad Guys: Doctors and Insurance Companies
2. Frank/Dodd Act:
Victim: Homeowners Facing Foreclosure
Bad Guy: Evil Bankers and Wall Street Execs
3. Town Hall Meetings:
Victim: Democrat Congressmen
Bad Guy: Violent Conservative Citizens
4. Alleged Racism:
Victim: President Barack Obama
Bad Guys: Racist Tea Partiers/Conservatives/Republicans
5. Contraceptive Mandate:
Victim: Sandra Fluke and All Women in America
Bad Guys: Rush Limbaugh, Republicans and the Right Wing Hate Machine
Hopefully everyone is getting the idea here. The democrats have sunk to this level in every battle since President Obama took office and will continue to do so throughout this election season. Were they really outraged because Rush Limbaugh called Ms. Fluke a slut? Of course not. The left uses similar language on a daily basis as terms of endearment amongst themselves. Any given day you can hear much worse being said about conservatives by the likes of Ed Schultz, Bill Maher, Bill Press and Mike Malloy. There is no real outrage from the left over Rush’s comments. The left just knows they can’t win a debate, let alone an election, if they can’t make someone, somewhere feel like a victim, and themselves the benevolent saviors.
Have you ever listened to a politician explaining his budget plan and how much money he will save? Then you hear your political analyst or talk show host of choice tell you how those numbers were all wrong, and that the proposal will in reality only save around half as much as claimed? Most just figure the politician is lying because, after all, he is a politician. That's what they do. In reality there is a much more sinister political game being played called baseline budgeting. This insidious political tool allows the government to continue to increase spending year after year under the guise of being "fiscally responsible."
The idea of baseline budgeting really took off in Washington after the fall of Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal. When the left came to power, they needed a way to ensure that their ability to grow government continued no matter who was in office. Soon, the idea of establishing a baseline of automatic spending increases was in full swing before Americans knew what hit us. The current-day CBO baseline projects spending and revenue for the next 10 years and allows for assumed increases in each of the various government agencies. A good example of this would be if the Department of Education has a projected yearly budget increase of 15%, and the Republican controlled House proposes a 5% cut, the Democrats would scream bloody murder that the GOP hates children and they are robbing money from the education of America's future generations. The reality of the situation is that no money is being robbed from anyone, and in fact the Department of Education would still be receiving a 10% increase in their budget.
The other side of this coin is that it also allows Republicans to claim massive spending cuts, when in reality our spending increases year after year. A current real life example of this is the "Boehner Plan" proposed by Speaker of the House John Boehner as part of his deal to raise the debt ceiling. Speaker Boehner claimed his deal would cut approximately $1.1 trillion dollars from the federal budget over the next 10 years. Sadly the math just doesn't add up when you realize these cuts are made against the CBO Baseline over the next ten years which automatically increases spending by around $9 trillion dollars. In essence, even though the Speaker is claiming his plan will cut spending by $1.1 trillion over the next ten years, spending will in fact increase by $7-$8 trillion.
The latest plan to emerge from the GOP stable has been presented by Fla. Rep. Connie Mack. The "Penny Plan" as it is being called, projects that if we cut a minuscule 1% of the budget across the board, the U.S. budget would be balanced within six years. This is possible because this plan uses zero baseline budgeting so any cuts are based on current spending levels without increases built in. According to the "Penny Plan," after the budget is balanced in six years, federal spending is then capped at 18% of GDP to prevent the kind of runaway spending that got us into this mess to begin with. We know that the left would never go for this and would call out the GOP for attempting to impose a $9 trillion cut in spending, which in reality is only approximately a $38 billion cut.
These types of political games are very important to be aware of at all times, but specifically during budget debates and the current debt ceiling debate. It is important to understand that mendacious politicians use these games to keep the American people from realizing that, no matter what they tell you they are cutting, their grip on our lives grows stronger every day.
The nation has been through a whirlwind of emotions since the killing of the most wanted man in the world, Osama Bin Laden. When the news broke late on that Sunday night many were in disbelief, but the celebrations began across the country. For a brief moment we were united again, much like the days following the tragic events on 9/11. Video emerged of New York City subway passengers breaking out in a spontaneous chorus of God Bless America, and countless other similar events throughout the nation.
It wasn't long before the adrenaline wore off and the political positioning began. Both sides were looking for how best to turn this into a win for their side while making their political opponents look weak. There were many conflicting reports about every detail of the operation including the administrations choice on whether or not to release the photos of Bin Laden's dead body.
The news of OBL's death brought back a flood of memories and emotions for most Americans. Remembering when the news of the attacks first broke, the images of the airplanes as they crashed into each tower, the flames and smoke, the helpless victims hanging from windows above the gaping holes, and of course the horrific image of terrified men and women jumping from the buildings to avoid the flames. These images we were witness to that day will never leave us. We as Americans will remember every detail of that day for as long as we live, and there is nothing that will erase the pain we felt as a nation.
The administrations decision to withhold the photographs of Osama Bin Laden's corpse has denied the American people a very important chapter in the course of history. The American people were forced to endure the images of September 11th without any consideration of our feelings. Mr. Bin Laden didn't seem to care about the families of the victims and how it might hurt them to watch thousands or Americans, including their loved ones, die in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. We as Americans have a right to see these images. To witness with our own eyes that this monster is dead and can do no more harm. This little bit of closure should not be denied to the American people in the name of political correctness. It is time we as a nation stand and demand that right and pressure the White House to release those photos.
Here we are now 2 full years into the President's term and we still keep hearing rumblings about the birther theory. For those who aren't familiar with the term, it is the claim that President Obama is not a U.S. Citizen and was not eligible to become President. There is no actual evidence to substantiate this claim and this theory is not supported by any legitimate conservative member of our government or the media.
This bogus story gained momentum across the internet during the 2008 presidential campaign then exploded after President Obama won the election. Most of us hoped it would go away quickly, but of all people Chris Matthews of MSNBC let the cat out of the bag recently on his show by calling for the President to release the full text version of his Hawaiian birth certificate. Mr. Matthews went on to explain how this would end this debate once and for all and put it to rest, but what he failed to realize is that the very party he supports is keeping this idea alive for political fodder.
For decades liberals have been positioning themselves in the media and in the school rooms in an attempt to rewrite the public view of America being built on conservative values. Liberals know the only way to position themselves to take power, is to change the public's view of the rise of America from the successful building of the most prosperous nation in the world, which was built in an amazingly short number of years, to the story of a racist and violent country which was built on the blood of the poor and minorities. With the election of the first black president the liberals got scared that their hoax of America as a racist nation might be in danger of being debunked.
Then along came this theory by a few on the fringe, and the left wing spin machine saw an opportunity to paint anyone who speaks out against their agenda as a racist, and even came up with a catchy pet name for this group. We all know there are fringe groups on the far right who are racists, who are extremists, and who create absurd stories like these. Those people are living in the hills and backwoods of the nation and are the rejects of society. The left has their crazy and violent extremists as well... But most of them have their own TV news show.
The Democrats have caught themselves in a lie that they have been telling for as long as I can remember. We all know the old standby attack line used against Republicans and Conservatives is that they are only for tax cuts for the rich, and they don't care about lower and middle income Americans. Even as recently as the 2008 presidential campaign we can remember then candidate Obama on the trail claiming the Bush era tax cuts only helped the rich and did little for lower and middle income families struggling through economic hardships. Don't remember? Well how about a trip down memory lane?
2006- GREGORY STANFORD (Staff Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)
"The Republican Congress hates helping the poor but loves helping the rich.
How else do you explain its eagerness to approve hefty tax breaks for the wealthy and reluctance to approve an overdue hike in the measly minimum wage?" - http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=MWSB&p_theme=mwsb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=11358BDA011D1478&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date%3AD&s_trackval=GooglePM
2006- The Salt Lake Tribune:
"The federal budget deficit for the current year is estimated at $36.300 billion. So, naturally, the Republican Congress has responded by extending President Bush's tax cuts to the rich." -http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SLTB&p_theme=sltb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=1119FA6295156E30&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
2006- Joe Kay (World Socialist Website)
"The US Congress this week passed another round of extraordinary tax cuts for the rich, worth an estimated $70 billion over five years. The bill is part of the relentless redistribution of social resources in the United States, from the vast majority of the population into the hands of a small oligarchy. It will be signed into law by President Bush early next week." - http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/may2006/taxc-m13.shtml
2008- Matthew Yglesias (The Atlantic)
"Long story short, both candidates have deficit-increasing proposals that will likely reduce economic growth. But McCain's take a bigger hole out of the budget and the benefits are much more concentrated among the wealthiest Americans."
So according to all these sources, President Obama during the 2008 campaign, and pretty much every Democrat to run for office in the last 10 years, the Bush tax cuts helped the rich and hurt the poor. Well if this is true, why are so many Democrats fighting to keep the current tax rates on lower and middle income families? White House official Larry Summers even admitted that not extending the current tax rates could send our nation back into another recession and the President himself has argued that allowing these cuts to expire on anyone making less than $250,000 would have devastating effects on the economy. But how is that true if these tax cuts only ever helped the rich to begin with? Could it be that maybe, JUST MAYBE, the democrats made this whole story up to create some kind of class warfare and turn America against the wealthy in order to fulfill some sort of socialist redistributive dream?
The President even caught on that the Dems were tipping their hand a bit this past week and came out with a baseless story that the Republicans will fight to end middle class tax cuts in 2 years. I guess when you become as desperate as the current Democratic Party, little things like facts shouldn't stand in your way anymore. Am I the only one that misses having a President with some kind of integrity?
As I look at the ever increasing hand of government telling us what we should and should not do, and attempting to control our behavior through taxes and penalties, I realize that we are probably past the "point of no return" in our battle against this. With taxes increasing or proposed increases on items like tobacco, alcohol, gasoline, oil related products, any food that doesn't taste like cardboard, and energy in general if Cap and Tax gets voted into law, the government is attempting to dictate our behavior and force us to live how they feel is most appropriate.
I believe there would have been hope for us to overcome this trend if it hadn't been allowed to grow into the beast it is today. Looking back through history we see these excise taxes have existed for years, but began as a limited source of income for the government mostly focused on tobacco. For example, in 1929 80% of excise revenue came from the $.06 a pack tax on cigarettes when President Hoover took office. This was proven as an easy way for the government to tax a broader group of people then the income tax of the time. This lead President Hoover to pass a package of new sweeping excise taxes in 1932 which included duties on cars, movies tickets, radios, phonographs, long distance telephone calls, telegrams, cosmetics, cameras, bank checks, stock transfers, yachts, jewelry, furs, and the first ever gasoline tax of $.01 per gallon. As always these were labeled as temporary emergency excise taxes to help stem the governments loss of revenue during the depression. However when the great President Roosevelt took office, these were renewed each year throughout the 1930's until they became a permenant part of the American way of life. And so began the downhill roll of this tax snowball which has grown beyond anything even the socialist FDR could have imagined.
The question I pose to you today is, will we ever be able to stop this cycle of increasing excise taxes to fund more and more government entitlements? Or are we doomed to suffer from the insaitable appetite for money and power in Washington?
Watching the President's speech on Tuesday night, about the gulf oil spill, made me think about how you can truly tell what kind of leader someone is by how they respond to a crisis. As I've looked back on this crisis and compared with how Presidents in the past have dealt with major events, I have noticed the many shortcomings of our current Commander in Chief. President Obama has spent most of his time worrying much more about who to blame, who will take the fall, and who's ass he wants to publicly kick to make himself out to be the savior, rather than accepting help which has been offered by many sources, and actually trying find a way to fix the problem at hand.
Then to hear the liberal media in our country praise his leadership in this time of crisis just boggles my mind. The majority of the country is tired of the President's criticism without action. A recent poll showed that 50% of people from Louisiana believe President Bush did a better job with Katrina than President Obama has with the gulf oil spill and only 35% think President Obama has done a better job. Look back at the constant media assault on President Bush after Katrina and it becomes very clear where the media's loyalties lie, and it is not with the average American. Can you imagine the outrage if for 50+ days after Sept. 11th, President Bush had done nothing but blame President Clinton? I guess that is the difference between a leader, and a campaigner.
Why do liberals always point to the corporate influence into our government as a problem with corporations, which they say should be more heavily regulated and robbed of first amendment rights? Instead, why don't they see this as a problem with government, which in all reality should be more heavily regulated? The way our democratic republic was set up, the government was to have very little power and their job was to protect the rights of the individual. With the government having little power, there is no reason for a company to invest money in them because they have little power to help them. The place they would need to invest, to benefit themselves, is with the American people. Then we all benefit!
One prime example of this is the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which was set up in 1986 but not funded until the government passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which taxed oil companies at $.08 per barrel of oil produced in the U.S. or imported from outside the country. This allowed oil companies to face no more than $75 million in liability for damages that result from oil spills. The rest was to be paid for out of the “trust fund.” The problem is that this trust fund now hold approx. $1.6 billion which will be a drop in the bucket towards cleaning up the oil spill we are fighting in the Gulf of Mexico. The liberals in this country are pointing to this as an example of deregulation when in fact, this is another prime example of a bad government regulation. The government had the power to set up this insurance policy for a company and help prop it up in case of a problem, but then the American people end up being the ones to pick up the tab. This is why limiting the governments power to do special favors and impose ridiculous regulations, would go a long way towards stomping out political corruption.
This has never made sense to me. Why regulate business and restrain them from creating wealth, which creates jobs, and improves the lives of people everywhere. Why not limit and regulate the government, which can not create wealth, which seldom inspires innovation, which can not grant rights, but can only protect rights, or infringe upon rights, and which has a record of absolute inefficiency? The second choice seems to be the obvious one to grow our nation in every aspect, and provide a stronger economy, free from political corruption. But do we honestly think our government will ever willingly give up their power, no matter how much it would benefit us all?
Every few years a political phrase comes along that is so over used that you want to just puke every time you hear it. In the 2008 elections there were several of the thrown around. The obvious "Faith, Hope, and Change" springs to mind first for me. The unbearable use of the word "Maverick" to describe both John McCain and his running mate is the next one that sends me running to pray to the porcelain god. Then of course the almost religious chanting of "Yes We Can" is one that still makes me twitch every time I even think about it! Yet these catch phrases are also used as attacks against the political opposition, such as the ever tiresome "Eight More Years of the Same..."
But lately, one that was widely used several years ago has popped into my head, and I think it may be time to revive it! If you remember the 80's and Jerry Falwell's "moral majority," then you probably also remember the attack slogan of the left saying the conservatives are "legislating morality." This was always one area where I tended to lean more libertarian, before any of us even knew what a libertarian was. I always believed it was the governments job to protect the rights of the individual and not to deny rights. Of course these rights end where they begin to infringe on the rights of others.
As of late I have come to realize that the liberal movement in this country, is doing exactly what the conservatives were being accused of for years. They are legislating their own Marxist version of morality. Just look at the string of legislation that has been pushed since President Obama took office. The most prominent example of this is the Health Care Reform package, which was just forced down our throats. The justification the left gave for this package, was that every American deserves health insurance and that it is a basic human right. This is a very common moral belief among liberals in this country. Next is Cap and Trade, which is much more about redistributing wealth and taxing business than capping carbon dioxide emissions. This is a "moral" issue to the left as well. Keep going down the list and you will find more of the same. Comprehensive immigration reform, (aka National I'd cards and amnesty,) Financial System Reform, and the FDA limiting our salt intake... These are all pieces of legislation that are meant to address moral issues.
The problem with this, is that they really don't care if their solutions conform with our Constitution and the values our great nation was founded upon. Liberals view the Constitution and Bill of Rights as barriers to their moral agenda. They believe they serve a purpose so high that some dusty old piece of paper shouldn't stand in their way. The job of our government is not to legislate morality, nor is it to impose the will of the elite on the people. Our government was set up to protect the rights of the individual and not to infringe upon them in any way. Our government has forgotten that over the past 100 years and it is pretty easy to see their morals do not match with the idea of a free democratic republic.
I'm sure most of us by now have heard of the proposed ban on salt by State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz of New York. If you haven't heard about it, Mr. Ortiz proposed banning salt in all dishes served at any restaurant in New York. Any restaurants caught using salt would be fined up to $1,000 per dish. I'm also sure most people laughed it off much like I did at first. However after some thought on this I realized we don't need to dismiss this as just another crazy idea from a nut on the fringe of the far left. There is no doubt this idea is insane, but Mr. Ortiz and his colleagues in the state assembly all knew this was a crazy idea and knew there was no way it would be taken seriously. This whole proposal to ban salt was a set up all along. The liberals in New York used Mr. Ortiz and his proposal as a set up to make them appear to be "centrists" who are willing to compromise because they care about people. Once this idea is shot down, the left will roll out their more fair ideas to compromise and leave salt alone, because it is really essential to cooking many great things, and they will go after something truly evil like trans fats, soda, high fructose corn syrup, or the number one target of the nanny states, TOBACCO! Then when anyone with an sense of self responsibility rejects these new proposals, the left can claim to be the only ones willing to look beyond partisan politics, and compromise for the good of the people. They can go on to accuse everyone that is against their legislation of being cold hearted right wing extremists that don't care about people. Next will come the usual pity cards that liberals always love to drag out and slap on the table like trying to turn it into an issue of race, or an issue of the right wing against the poor.
Does this sound like a bit of a stretch? Think back through the entire time line of the health care reform debate we were just forced to endure. Now does this tactic sound familiar? Look back at the original ideas for a public option, and to phase out private insurance companies by not allowing them to write any new policies. This idea was too much for the American people and even many members of congress to take. The liberals behind this bill picked it apart just enough so they could claim it wasn't a government takeover of 1/6th of our economy, but they left in tact enough to lay the ground work for a major step towards their ultimate goal. The Single Payer System of health care. The administration is even starting to admit that this is just the first step towards truly reforming health care, but they still refuse to admit where these steps will lead, in the end.
We at YouAreALiberal.com are going to keep an eye on the state assembly in New York and watch it closely. We haven't heard the last of these food bans. As soon as they get one passed into law, it will open the flood gates for more and more control over our private lives. If this type of legislation starts, mark my words we will see the salt ban again. Next time instead of some crazy idea, it will be looked at as just another small step towards protecting the citizens.