The Democratic Party Left The Chavez Family
Oct 30, 2008 Political
The Democratic party was once a great party in this country. It stood for the common man and it laid claim to proud veterans who served this country in uniform and then as civilian elected officials. The party might have had positions that ran contrary to what I and most other conservatives believe but they had a platform and they stuck to it. Then the party started to go downhill. They were infiltrated by Communists in the 50s and after JFK (who was not great, just popular) they have had platforms that have become increasingly Socialist. Under decades of Democrat control of government welfare has increased and social spending has skyrocketed. Items that they promise to fix never get attention. Education, health care, poverty and any number of other things are discussed before the election but then forgotten after. Their social policies created the environment where this economic meltdown occurred and now that money is tight they want to cut defense spending by 25%. Defense spending is about 25% of the entire budget. Most goes to social programs. Top this off with their horrific stance on the murder of unborn children and it is easy to see that the party has left its better days behind.
Ronald Reagan was a Democrat but he became a Republican and he declared that he did not leave his party, his party left him. I read a letter to the editor of the University of New Mexico Daily Lobo that was written by an alumnus named Steve Chavez. It is a telling letter and I think it expresses the same sentiments that Reagan did with regard to the Democratic Party:
Editor,
For the first time since the big bang, all my immediate family are defecting from the Democratic Party to vote for John McCain and Republicans for Congress and Senate. Why?
The Republicans had a wide variety of candidates to choose from, which included the far right to McCain, who was labeled as “too liberal” by the Republicans. The Democrats, on the other hand, seemed to stack the deck with presidential and congressional candidates such as Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich, who started on the left, reached to the far left and then went beyond to the Twilight Zone. Take for instance the top three presidential candidates: Barack Obama voted No. 1 Liberal, Hillary Clinton No. 2 and Biden at No. 3. But what’s interesting is who is No. 4. He is Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont who is also an admitted socialist and a frequent speaker at Communist Party USA conventions along with many other Democrats in Congress, including Maxine Waters, of the “Out of Iraq Caucus,” who meets with peace groups like United for Peace & Justice, which is run by Leslie Cagan and Judith LeBlanc of the Communist Party USA.
Another issue concerning my Catholic family is Obama’s stance on abortion. Two in my family have been pro-choice until now. Our Republican sister brought up a serious point during our last Easter picnic. She told us the story of Jill Stanek, a Chicago nurse who found a baby from a botched abortion in a janitor’s room left to die alone. She could not help the choking baby survive due to the extreme policy of the hospital, so she held the baby and had to watch it suffer for 45 minutes until the baby died. How many other babies are left in the closet to die alone after being born? Stanek has been revealing that Obama voted “no” to the Born Alive amendment four times. That’s beyond pro-choice when a baby is born, isn’t it? You can read more about her story at JillStanek.com and the exact Obama votes and excuses.
Many in my family are veterans, and in 2004, they voted for President Bush and the Iraq War. They will now vote for a fellow veteran, McCain, who was tortured by Communists in Vietnam while Jane Fonda, John Kerry and the Communist-led peace movement were literally spitting on them. They couldn’t possibly vote for Obama since he is aligned, supported and funded by the same movement that continues to spit on the troops. When they heard the leaders of the peace movement say, “the terrorists are the real freedom fighters,” they took that as a stab in the back, as those “freedom fighters” are killing their fellow Americans.
My informed Republican sister asked, “Name me one moderate Democrat?” After an afternoon of Easter egg hunting, us life-long Democrats couldn’t think of one. She mentioned Joe Lieberman, Al Gore’s vice presidential candidate in 2000. He was kicked out of his own party for supporting the Iraq War. He is a liberal on 99 percent of issues, but that one issue was enough for him to be kicked out? He now supports McCain. Therefore, since McCain is a liberal Republican, which would be close to a moderate Democrat - which seems is a contradiction of terms - we must vote for the nearest thing to the middle road where most of us are. If you are voting for change for change’s sake, you will be voting for a ticket to the left of an admitted socialist. How can you be to the left of a socialist?
S. James Chavez
UNM alumnus
It would appear that the Chavez family feels that the party has, as it did Reagan, left them. The candidates for president were among the most liberal in the party and the eventual winner, Barack Obama, is the most liberal Senator in the country. He is 3 spaces left of a Communist supporter.
Barack Obama might very well become the next president of this country but I believe there are many families like the Chavez family that will decide that Barack Obama is not the right person for the job and that his views are too radical for this country.
The Chavez family is telling the Democratic party and its nominee to keep the change…
The Bailout Pork Bill And Responsibility
Oct 4, 2008 Political
The bailout bill just passed by the Congress and signed into law contained billions of dollars in Christmas Tree ornaments that had nothing to do with bailing anyone out. These items, including provisions for tax cuts, were added to entice politicians to vote for it. We have no business bailing out Wall Street and we have effectively taken 700 billion steps in the direction of Communism*.
I heard Jesse Jackson on Neil Cavuto’s show and Jackson said the bill did not go far enough (surprise) and that if we can give low interest loans to auto makers (we should not be doing that) we should be able to do the same for homeowners. Jackson contended that people should get low interest rate loans from the government in order to restructure their debt and continue to pay for their homes. He insisted that the predatory lending practices led to their problems. Cavuto told him that while some predatory lending took place people were the ones who signed the dotted line. He said they needed to take responsibility for their actions and if they wanted to renegotiate it was up to them to do it with the people from whom they obtained their loans.
This is absolutely correct. Homeowners need to renegotiate with their lenders to get a better deal. It is not up to taxpayers to lend money to them regardless of whether they will pay it back or not. If they default then taxpayers will be left holding the bag (much as we are with Freddie and Fannie loans). Jackson wants to take personal responsibility away from people and have big government come in and take care of them. We no more belong doing that than we belong taking care of bankers or auto makers.
The market should be allowed to react in whatever direction the crisis leads it. People and businesses with money can come in and buy up failing businesses or they can go away. Allow the market to handle the crisis and leave the politicians who caused the problems out of it.
If Jackson thinks people have no responsibility in the contracts that they make and that government should bail them out then we should have some provisions which include a loss of voting rights if you become a ward of the government. If you are not able to understand a contract to buy a home and can be easily swayed then you are unable to understand the voting system and can be just as easily manipulated.
The bottom 50% of wage earners pay only about 4% of the taxes in this country so they will not be affected by the bailout as much as those who will see tax increases in order to pay for this mess. The voting system needs to be changed so that people are afforded more votes if they pay more in taxes. Perhaps each person gets one vote and then people get an additional vote for every $5000 in taxes that they pay. The people who pay for this country should have a greater say in how it is governed much like stockholders in a company who have more votes if they have more stock.
Whether Wall Street executives or distressed homeowners, the philosophy is the same; live with your decisions. If they cause you problems then you can work your way out and be all that much stronger for it.
If government steps in and fixes your bad decisions you will continue to make them. We get more of what we subsidize.
*I heard this phrase on TV but do not know who said it.
Tags: bailout, communism, jesse jackson, pork, taxes
Obama Opposes First And Second Amendment
Sep 28, 2008 Political
Barack Hussein Obama is against the First and Second Amendments to the United States Constitution and he denying the use of one to silence information about the other. Barack Obama has held anti gun views throughout his political career. He favors bans on handgun sales, bans on most hunting ammunition and bans on many of the rifles and shotguns we use to participate in sport. Make no mistake about it, despite the nuances and lies of the campaign, Obama has a history of opposing gun ownership. His support of the Heller decision runs counter to his claims of supporting the DC gun ban. Obama will say anything now that he realizes that he needs the gun clingers to win this election.
So, in order to win Obama will trample on our rights. It has been previously reported that the Obama campaign has been working with law enforcement in Missouri in order to harass people who say things about Obama that are considered to be a lie. This is illegal and reflects the kind of tactics one would expect from a Communist leader, not someone who wants to be the leader of a FREE country. The Obama campaign is taking its suppression of rights two steps farther.
Obama’s lawyers have sent letters to broadcast stations in Ohio and Pennsylvania criticizing them for airing an NRA ad that they claim is full of lies (but is demonstrably full of true statements) and covertly threaten the broadcast license of the stations if they continue to air the ad. The Obama campaign is threatening the First Amendment right of the stations as well as the NRA (and therefore its members) in order to suppress Obama’s threat to the Second Amendment. The ad (embedded in this post and placed in my sidebar) demonstrates Obama’s threat to the Second Amendment and Obama does not want those who bitterly cling to their guns to see it. I encourage all bloggers who support the Second Amendment to put the video up on their blogs, Obama and his lawyers be damned.
Yes Barry, this is a reason not to vote for you. You found that out and are trying to use thuggery to suppress the people but it won’t work.
These thuggish acts are right out of the Chicago politics playbook and portray an ominous future in an Obama administration where people’s Second Amendment rights would be under attack as would those who dare to write or say anything about the “Dear Leader, Obama.” I doubt however, that the rogue leaders of the world would pay much attention to a letter from Obama’s lawyers expressing dissatisfaction over words used to describe the Dear Leader.
Barack Obama and his thugs are liars, they are miscreants who use strong armed tactics to run roughshod over people who disagree with them. Well screw them. We will not allow them to take away any of the rights enumerated in our Constitution. I took an oath to protect this country against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. Obama is a domestic enemy of our Constitution (who keeps company with domestic terrorists in this country) and we must stop him at all costs. The first method is by opposition to him and his lawyers and their demands, peacefully at first and then escalating to whatever level is necessary to stop the assault.
The second way is to ensure that this Communist is not elected to the presidency of this country. If that becomes a reality our rights will be under further assault.
And we will not allow that to happen no matter what we need to do to stop it.
For a guy who claims not to be a Muslim he sure acts like them when it comes to people saying or writing things he does not like.
Sic semper tyrannis
Others:
The Volokh Conspiracy (corrects Fact Check’s errors) | The Bitch Girls | Instapundit | Snowflakes in Hell
Tags: communism, first amendment, Obama, rights, Second Amendment, suppression of voters, thugs
Obama Apple Stays Near The Tree
Sep 8, 2008 Political
If Barack Obama is elected president he, with the assistance of a Democratic Congress, will impose huge tax increases upon us. His defenders claim he will roll taxes to what they were under Bill Clinton. Those were bad enough but with all the spending he has proposed, he will have to increase taxes much more in order to push through his agenda. However, Obama hedged on taxes a bit:
Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush’s tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.
Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates. Instead, Obama wants to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class, he said in a broadcast interview aired Sunday.
“Even if we’re still in a recession, I’m going to go through with my tax cuts,” Obama said. “That’s my priority.”
What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?
“I think we’ve got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now,” Obama said on “This Week” on ABC. “The news with Freddie Mac (FRE) and Fannie Mae (FNM), I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we’re fragile.” My Way News
Obama will delay rescinding the Bush tax cuts because the economy is in a recession (it is not). Therefore, he is admitting that taxes hurt the economy. If taxes helped then it would not matter when he rescinded them. The reality is, even under the best of times, taxes hurt the economy and when it is not in great shape the pain is even worse.
He also admits that he would have to take a look at his tax increases on the wealthy because of the fragile economy. In other words, we have more people out of jobs and high prices so if he raises taxes those who create jobs will stop creating as many and more people will be unemployed. The increased taxes will cause prices to go higher (tax increases are passed on to consumers) and people will pay even more.
The way to solve the problems is to cut federal spending. Eliminate unnecessary and duplicate programs and cut budgets. This will decrease the need for our money and we can keep the taxes low or lower them even more. People who earn the money should keep it and decide how it is spent.
Taking money from those who have more of it and redistributing it to those who have less of it is Socialism. That is what Barry Obama is all about because it is in his blood:
“What is more important is to find means by which we can redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all. This is the government’s obligation.”
~snip~
“Certainly there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay. It is a fallacy to say that there is this limit, and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings.” Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.
The apple certainly does not fall far from the tree. Daddy Hussein was a Harvard educated economist. Amazing what a goat herder can do when he puts his mind to it.
The link to the story about his father is very enlightening. Particularly interesting is this gem:
Obama Sr. described his own economic plan, his counterproposal, as it were, as “scientific socialism — inter alia — communism.” Yes, Obama’s father was a communist who wanted to put socialist theory into action — by “force.” [emphasis mine]
Tags: communism, economy, high taxes, Obama, socialism
Democrats Brazenly Move Toward Socialism
Jun 19, 2008 Political
It is no secret among thinking people that the Democratic Party is a socialist group. Most of them mask their Socialistic or Communistic tendencies but they are moving closer and closer to everything being run by the government and redistribution of all wealth except for the wealth of the ruling class. They will remain rich and try to control our lives. Barack Hussein Obama is a Socialist. He believes in class warfare and he believes it is up to government to take money from the wealthy and give it to the poor. He is a regular liberal Robin Hood.
The Democrats have moved in this direction for quite some time and they are often aided by Republicans who have some strange desire to pander to the left rather than espousing good conservative principles. They give tax “rebates” to people who paid no taxes. They take money in the form of taxes and spread it out across the country in the form of earmarks. They push for universal health care which means the taxpayers will pay for everyone’s health care (and their own since they will not qualify for gubmint health care). They have Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security a program whose name tells you it is socialist. They do all these a little at a time and they will eventually take over our lives and we will still be wondering what hit us.
Stop the ACLU has a video up and it show how brazen the left in America is getting. The clip features Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee, stating that if there are more refineries built in this country then the government should own them. Think about that for a minute. How can the government own anything? The people of this country pay the taxes that the government spends so if they start building refineries the taxpayers will own them.
That is the first point but more importantly, what business does the government have owning a refinery or anything else? With private companies owning them there are stock holders and an expectation of making money, which by the way is not obscene or record. They are at 10% and that is reasonable for any business. If oil companies have problems then they must spend company money to correct them. Whose money will the government spend if their refineries have problems? You guessed it, yours. And since they are Congress they can keep taking as much of your money as they want. You can bet that they will not be selling stock and if they did it would all go to members of Congress.
The idea of the government taking over private industry is Socialist and it would put us more in line with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. In the same clip at STACLU there is a woman on Fox discussing how she thinks this is a great idea. She is an obvious idiot and should have one of those protective helmets on when she is out and about. The problem is, there are many more just like her out there and a whole lot of them are called Congressional Democrats. This is not some slip up either. Remember when they had the oil execs in for their regular grilling. One of the less than intelligent members said that she wanted to nationalize oil. In other worlds, she wanted the government to take it over.
The government is an entity that works for the people and it is designed to represent the people. We are supposed to be left alone to pursue what we want in life. That is what freedom is all about. If government starts taking over private industry, we have lost our freedom and we will be a Socialist nation. The government’s quest is not limited to oil. They want to take over health care. Remember all the fuss about Walter Reed and Army medical care? You know all the news reports about troops not getting the care they need? Their care is run by the government. The same Democrats who went on TV describing the horrors at Walter Reed want to give you that very same government run system.
What will happen next? Will they decide pills cost too much and take over the pharmaceutical industry? Will they then spend billions in taxpayer dollars to make drugs to give away? Remember, if government screws up it taxes you more to get the money it needs. If private industry screws up it must answer to stock holders and consumers.
This whole debate started because Republicans are pushing to resume drilling for oil on our own property. Democrats oppose that. They have opposed it for decades and that is why we are in this predicament. They always use the same excuse; we need to get off our dependence on oil and it will take 10 years to get any oil from the new drilling. They said that over 10 years ago and Bill Clinton vetoed drilling in ANWR. Guess what, it has been a little more than 10 years so we would be getting oil right now when we need it. As for alternative energy, sure that would be great but there are no new technologies that will be ready any sooner than the oil in ANWR. Alternate choices are decades away. Why don’t we use our oil while they start building new technologies?
It is a certainty that we need to drill our own oil. The Democrats are absolutely wrong when they say it will make no difference. It will have a huge impact and have little impact on the environment. What we absolutely do not need is the government taking over oil companies or building refineries. The government is inefficient and does not run anything well. This would be setting up a system that would be rife with corruption and it would make all the members of Congress richer than they are.
The government could not organize a birthday party. It could not lead a group of people out of a burning building and the government would lose money and have corruption, fraud and waste if they were selling air, a product guaranteed to have customers.
We need to demand that they allow drilling on our property (what happened to state’s rights?) and we need to make sure they are never allowed to take over any business.
The next revolution may well be on the way. I would prefer we overthrow the government by voting them all out and replacing them. However, it might be wise to stock up on ammo (as if any good conservative needed to be told that).
Additional source:
Fox
Tags: communism, government, Marxists, oil takeover, private industry, refineries, socialism
Loading ...
Loading... 
