35th Rant: The Tea Party

I am not a member of any tea parties here in Fort Myers, Florida. However, I am affiliated with a couple online and also know a lot of Tea Party supporters, so to read this letter to the editor in The News Press on Monday, April 2, 2012 is real disturbing to me

Make Believe

Tea parties are for little girls with imaginary friends.

Brendan Lally, Fort Myers

And then on the next page to see the Headline by E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post entitled “Tea Party tosses traditions of conservatism overboard” really got my blood pressure soaring. If it were not for a Tea Party, there would be no America today. No, I do not mean the Tea Party protests and the elections of 2009 – 2010. I am going further back.

Let us step into the time machine and take a trip to Colonial Boston in 1773. At the time Great Britain had ruled over the colonies. On May 10, King George had put the royal seal of approval on the Tea Act, which was supposed to convince the colonists to purchase Company tea on which the Townshend Duties were paid, thus implicitly agreeing to accept Parliament's right of taxation. It had also granted the Company the right to directly ship its tea to North America and the right to the duty-free export of tea from Britain, although the tax imposed by the Townshend Acts and collected in the colonies remained in force.

The Colonists were not pleased, and as such recognized the implications of the Act's provisions, and a coalition of merchants and artisans similar to that which had opposed the Stamp Act of 1765 mobilized opposition to delivery and distribution of the tea. The company's authorized consignees were harassed, and in many colonies successful efforts were made to prevent the tea from being landed. This culminated in the Boston Tea Party where colonists (some disguised as Native Americans) boarded tea ships anchored in the harbor and dumped their tea cargo overboard. The group (led by Samuel Adams) numbered somewhere between 30 and 130 colonists dressed as Mohawk Indians who had boarded the Dartmouth, Beaver, and Eleanor and destroyed and tossed 342 chests of tea overboard into Boston Harbor in the span of three hours. This was one of the fuses which led to the American Revolutionary War. Granted, there were other events which precipitated the colonists to revolt, but the Boston Tea Party set the stage for the final straw to the colonists to break ties from England.

If it were not for those patriots, those Sons of Liberty, there would be no America now. In 2009 with ObamaCare on the forefront and also the stimulus bill, people were fed up with Obama’s policies that they revot4ed. Not with throwing tea into harbors or even going out into the streets with guns and hacksaws, but rather with loud voices and constitutions in their hands and confronted their Senators and Congressmen who had put in their support for ObamaCare and the stimulus, as well as a few laws like Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley. That led to the election of Scott Brown to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts in January, 2009 after Kennedy died as well as the massive election in 2010 when the Republicans took back the House with victories by Allen West, Michelle Bachman, and other Representatives backed by the Tea Party.

The Tea Party IS alive and well in 2012 also. Granted, there have been many of the Tea party darlings like Rubio, Ryan, and others who have backed Mitt Romney for president, but they are in no way establishment based now, which is what many have said on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media outlets. May we do what we can to keep the House, take back the Senate, and evict Obama from the White House in 2012. To quote Darrell Lee in The Patriot Zone on Facebook,

Dear President Obama,
The answer to 2012 is 1773.
Retrospectively Yours,
The Tea Party

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons license.

34th Rant: The 2012 Election and Talk of a Third Party (Part 2)

Well apparently it seems like many people either did not read my entry from last week or they did and just brushed it off as nonsense so let me reiterate this once more.

THIS ELECTION IS WAY TOO IMPORTANT TO VOTE THIRD PARTY!

In other words, the ONLY TWO VIABLE CHOICES for this election are BARACK OBAMA AND THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE. If you sit at home or vote for anyone else then it is a throwaway vote for Obama. Many of us have our own reasons why we are not going to vote for any of the GOP candidates in the primaries, but if this does not go into a brokered convention, then our ONLY OTHER CHOICE is to come together as a party or a group and vote Obama out. The only one that can do that is the Republican nominee. No third party candidate (outside of Ross Perot in 1992) had gotten enough traction to make a dent in the election count, whether it is popular vote or electoral vote.

Allow me to reiterate two comments made my by Harriet Baldwin, my co-host, in the Patriot Zone

Let me be clear: This is the MOST important election in our lifetimes. We MUST get behind the nominee-whoever it may be. A vote for ANY "third party candidate" is a vote for The Fraud aka Barack Hussein Obama. You are either with America or against America. Voting for Third Party or sitting on your sorry azz is unaccepatable.

Get involved. Get informed. COMMUNICATE. This "Third Party" talk is FINE after 2012. Not now. Imagine what this America-hating Usurper will do as a Lame Duck? Give me a break. End of America.

IF we do not vote for the GOP nominee in November, then this WILL be our future during an Obama second term

 

If you want this to happen, then go ahead and vote for Barack Obama or those fronts known as third party candidates this year. I am voting for the Republican nominee because I want to be able to sing this come November 7.

The choicer is yours, either a tyrannical anti-American dictator to lead us into the fall of the Republic, or the chance to sing Goodbye to him in November.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons license.

33rd Rant: The 2012 Election and Talk of a Third Party

This week in the Patriot Zone there was one person who had said that because it looks like Mitt Romney will be the Republican Presidential Nominee, he will be voting third party and encouraged others to do so as well. History has shown that third parties serve nothing but heartbreak for the sitting president. For a classic example of this, we need look no further than 1992 when George H. W. Bush, aka Bush 41, lost to Bill Clinton due to Ross Perot siphoning a large amount of votes. Outside of that, third party candidates (and there are many of them. I think on this ballot there are 40-50 third parties who would be fielding a presidential nominee.

In 2008, we had elected Barack Obama, one who was not properly vetted by the media and when he came in to office did so with the goal of fundamentally transforming our nation, ready to rule form day one according to Valerie Jarrett, a member of his then-transition staff. Now thanks to Andrew Breitbart and Sean Hannity, we have begun to properly vet Barack Obama. this election is WAY to important to waste it on a third party because of the destruction Obama has been doing. I feel that if we vote third party come November 6, 2012, we will in a sense be handing Obama the keys to the White House for another four years.

IF we want to get Obama out of office in November, we have to do so with the right candidate. Outside of Perot's serious run in 1992, third party candidates have only served as spoilers for the sitting president in history. However, I feel that this year the third party candidate will serve to aid Obama in keeping the White House for another 4 years because of this current crop of candidates. Granted, I am a Republican and a Newt Gingrich supporter, but let's be realistic here. If he is not the nominee this year, the other three are not quite as electrifying to me as Newt is. It looks like Mitt Romney is the presumptive nominee, and if he keeps his position, I will vote for him in November because he, like the other Republican nominees this year, are better than Obama. The only one who electrified and excited me this election season was Herman Cain, but thanks to the establishment suits on both the Republican and the Democrat since he was forced to suspend his campaign.

My good friend and co-host Harriet Baldwin had posted a couple of things to really put this election into perspective when she posted the following two comments in The Patriot Zone.

• Let me be clear: This is the MOST important election in our lifetimes. We MUST get behind the nominee-whoever it may be. A vote for ANY "third party candidate" is a vote for The Fraud aka Barack Hussein Obama. You are either with America or against America. Voting for Third Party or sitting on your sorry azz is unaccepatable.
• Get involved. Get informed. COMMUNICATE. This "Third Party" talk is FINE after 2012. Not now. Imagine what this America-hating Usurper will do as a Lame Duck? Give me a break. End of America.
  

The ONLY TRUE VIABLE alternative to Barack Hussein Obama in November is the Republican nominee, where it be Mitt Romney, the other three candidates running now, or whoever comes out of a brokered convention in August. Either way, whoever comes out of the Republican National Convention on August 30, we will have 60 days to coalesce around that candidate and do whatever it takes to defeat Obama. A vote for ANY of the third party candidates this year, and this clip from "Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith" COULD VERY WELL be our future if Obama wins re-election.

 

 

I know I do not want this to happen. The question is, "Do You?"

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons license.

32nd Rant: The truth about our economic mess

I had found this on Facebook, and it is so true. The Democrats like to claim that it is “Bush’s fault” we are in this mess, but is it really? Read this and then decide.

 

READ THIS THOROUGHLY AND SHARE....
IT WILL EXPLAIN A LOT TO THE UNIFORMED
{It won't matter at all to the leftists because they will refuse to see,
but what else is new...)
• Our Economic Mess and How Obama "inherited" it.
IN CASE YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN THE DETAILS
Or Why the Democrats find it so "convenient to blame Bush...
Don't just skim over this, read it slowly and let it sink in.
If in doubt, check it out.
The day the Democrats took over was NOT January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, which is the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate ---the beginning of the 110th Congress.
On JANUARY 3, 2007, the Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers FOR THE FIRST TIME since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
On January 3, 2007, the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.
At the time:
• The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
• The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
• The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
• George Bush's Economic policies had SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH
Remember the day...
January 3, 2007 was the day that BARNEY FRANK TOOK OVER THE HOUSE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE AND CHRIS DODD TOOK CONTROL OF THE SENATE BANKING COMMITTEE
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
THE SENATE BANKING COMMITTEE and the HOUSE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE set up the banking and unemployment crisis by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco!
Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - beginning in 2001 -because he knew the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac boondoggle was a grave risk to the US economy.
Who collected the 3rd highest payoff (lobbying dollars/campaign contributions) from Freddie and Fannie? OBAMA
Who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrats in Congress, especially those in tcharge of the Banking and Financial Services Committees
So when someone tries to blame Bush..
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007....
THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
FURTHERMORE:
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress. The Democrats controlled the budget process in 2008 & 2009, as well as 2010 &2011, because they control the House of Representatives.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush, somewhat belatedly, got tough on spending increases.
In 2008 however, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid did an end run around George Bush, and passed continuing resolutions to keep the government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President in 2009.
• If the Democrats inherited a deficit, it was the 2007 deficit -- which was the last budget from a Republican-controlled Congress. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and featured the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After 2007, the Democrats in Congress took control of spending, including Barack Obama, who voted for those succeeding budgets.
• If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is :
I inherited a deficit that I voted for and helped create.
This will not be widely publicized, unless each of us shares it!
(Even then many will not understand or will CHOOSE not to understand) But we must try to explain to those who will actually listen. Please share.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons license.

31st Rant: Celebrities and what REALLY matters in America

For those of you who had either followed my blog for some time or who are new, permit me to explain why I first started blogging. The year was 2005. I was on the internet reading a few articles when my mom and uncle were talking about Martha Stewart and her release from prison. Mom had asked me for my opinion on it. A couple of days later, I was watching the news and all that the pundits and reporters could talk about was Martha Stewart. What infuriated me was not the fact that they talked about her release but that they kept at it for 5 solid hours. In fact, I was so infuriated that I had started a blog and led off with it.

And now here we are, seven years later and yet we have another celebrity making news constantly. This time it is Whitney Houston and her death. Granted, she was a good singer and everything, but I just have one question to ask everyone. What effect does she have on your life, liberty, or property? I mean, we have a Republic to save from Obama and a deficit to clear up. Right now more people are worried about American Idol, Justin Bieber, and what is on Extra or Entertainment Tonight than things that TRULY matter. If I am not mistaken this is how Rome fell. People were worried about the sporting events or the plays that they did not see the Empire falling from within until it was too late. 2010 was a wake-up call for us to take our Republic back, and if we learned anything from the CPAC meetings of last week, it is that this year we need to do whatever we can to ensure that Barack Obama and the Democrats do not maintain control of the government.

30th Rant: Wise words by Abraham Lincoln on the plight of the people

Short, sweet, and to the point

... "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
... You cannot build character and courage by taking
away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them,
what they could and should do for themselves."
- A. Lincoln

29th Rant: Obama is the first President ever, all right.

Found this on Facebook, and it is so good I am posting here to show what we are up against

 

By Sheryl A. Dowell:

"First President to refuse to show a valid birth certificate. First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.  First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

First President to preside over a cut to the credit rating of the United States. First President to violate the War Powers Act. First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico . First President to defy a Federal Judges court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law. First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

First President to spend a trillion dollars on shovel-ready jobs and later admit there was no such thing as shovel-ready jobs. First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters. First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with criminal convictions. First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees. First President to terminate Americas ability to put a man in space. First President to encourage racial discrimination and intimidation at polling places.

First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present. First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it. First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly speak-out on the reasons for their rate increases. First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state they are allowed to locate a factory.

First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN) First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago. First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case. First President to appoint 45 Czars to replace elected officials in his office.

First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office. First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records. First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it. First President to coddle American enemies while alienating Americas allies.

First President to publicly bow to Americas enemies while refusing to salute the U.S. Flag. First President to go on multiple global apology tours. First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends, paid for by the taxpayer.

First President to refuse to wear the U.S. Flag lapel pin. First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife. First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000.00 a year at taxpayer expense.

First President to repeat what the (un)Holy Qur’an tells us, and openly admit the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth. <shuddering in disgust!"

28th Rant: Obama

Found this on Facebook and decided to post it here as well:

 

From now thru November 2012 this should be required weekly or at least monthly, reading - BY ALL WHO VOTE!!!

Did you notice who Obama threatened when he wasn't getting his way on raising the debt ceiling?

... He threatened to not pay: Social Security Retirees, Military Retirees, Social Security disability and Federal Retirees.

NOW......... Let this really sink in!!!!

He did not threaten to stop payments to illegal aliens

He did not threaten to take frivolous benefits such as Internet access away from violent inmates

He did not offer to fire some of the thousands of unnecessary federal employees that he hired

He did not offer to cut down on his or his wife's frivolous gallivanting around the world

He did not threaten to not pay the senators and representatives or any of their staff

He did not threaten to take benefits away from welfare recipients

He did not threaten the food stamp programs

He did not threaten to not pay foreign aid

He did not threaten to cut back on anything that involves his base voters

The list could go on and on. He is in full political re-election mode!

Why are we allowing this person to destroy this wonderful country with his selfishness and his lies?

His type of change is killing our country. He needs to be stopped and only our votes can stop him.

Do not forget about his tactics when it's election time. Vote Obama out of the Presidency in 2012.

27th Rant The Primary and Caucus Election Season (part 2)

In my last blog entry I mentioned my fault with the current Primary and Caucus elections and mentioned how I would change the way the voting and selection process. After a little more research I had found out the delegate counts for each state and territory as well as the number needed to win. The delegate counts for each state are posted below.

• WEST (441 Delegates) – California (172), Oregon (29), Washington (43), Idaho (32), Montana (26), Wyoming (29), Alaska (27), Hawaii (20), Nebraska (35)
• ROCKY MOUNTAIN (507 delegates) – Arizona (58), Utah (40), New Mexico (23), Colorado (36), Texas (155), Oklahoma (43), Kansas (40), Missouri (30), Arkansas (36), Louisiana (46)
• MIDWEST (451 delegates) - North Dakota (28), South Dakota (28), Iowa (28), Minnesota (40), Wisconsin (42), Illinois (69), Indiana (46), Michigan (59), Ohio (66), Kentucky (45)
• SOUTH (532 delegates) – Mississippi (40), Alabama (50), Georgia (76), Florida (99), South Carolina (50), North Carolina (55), Virginia (50), Tennessee (58), Maryland (37), Delaware (17)
• NEW ENGLAND (400 delegates) – Pennsylvania (72), New Jersey (50), West Virginia (31), Connecticut (28), New York (95), Massachusetts (41), Vermont (17), New Hampshire (23), Maine (24), Rhode Island (19)

Now, all told the 50 states send 2331 delegates to the conventions. If I add the territories of Washington DC (which sends 19 delegates to the convention and votes in the general election in November unlike the other territories), US Virgin Islands (9 delegates), Puerto Rico (23 delegates), Northern Mariana Islands (9 delegates), Guam (9 delegates), and American Samoa (9 delegates), the total is 79 delegates for the 6 Territories. Therefore, the total for the 56 primaries and caucuses are 2410 delegates at the convention. Now according to the rules, 1191 delegates are needed to win the nomination, and some of the primaries and caucuses are not winner take all. The changes I would make to the Primary and Caucus season which I did not mention in my last blog entry would be as follows:

1. EVERY STATE would be winner take all.
2. the candidate would need 1200 delegates to win

This way as I said in the last entry, every candidate would have some skin in the game regardless of how much money they have or how they rank in the polls because this would be a 50 state election process and not focusing on any state in particular like the current system does where the pundits say that one candidate is done for after a certain state.

Again, there might be pro’s and con’s for this process I am proposing, and if there are any comments as to this scenario, please let me know on this entry or in my Instant Messengers or emails.

26th Rant: The Primary and Caucus Election Season

Well the voting begins today for the Republican nominee to challenge Barack Obama in November. Apparently Iowa and New Hampshire think they are so important that they want to be the first two states to vote. Iowa has their caucus tonight and New Hampshire has their Primary next Tuesday. The reason why it is tonight is because Florida wanted to push their primary back to January 31, which meant that Iowa and New Hampshire had to push theirs just so they can be first. I do not know the history behind that but that is what the people of both Iowa and New Hampshire want. Judging by the map I think it does not make any sense, especially since the next two are South Carolina on January 21 and Florida, which I had mentioned is on January 31. Now I understand that some candidates might skip New Hampshire and campaign in South Carolina or some candidates might campaign for 7 days in New Hampshire, then 11 days in South Carolina and then 10 days in Florida which might be a little too much on their schedules, so I have come up with an idea that might just work for all future primaries and caucuses in both the Democrat AND Republican parties.
My proposal is to divide the country into 5 regions of 10 states each and then once a month those regions go to the caucuses (in the form of states like Iowa) or primaries (in the form of states like Florida or New Hampshire) and then vote like normal. (I realize the US held territories like Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands also send delegates to the conventions, but have excluded them from this distribution because they do not vote for the President in November) After all, we have all 50 states vote in November, so why not have something in a smaller nature during the primaries or caucuses? The list I had come up with is a rough sketch, but I hope the general idea comes across.

• WEST – California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska
• ROCKY MOUNTAIN - Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana
• MIDWEST - North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky
• SOUTH - Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Maryland, Delaware
• NEW ENGLAND - Pennsylvania, New Jersey, West Virginia, Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island

Then every month one region can vote either at the beginning or the end of the month. This way every candidate can have some skin in the game regardless of how much money they have or how they rank in the polls. For instance, in Iowa the Top Three have Ron Paul and Rick Santorum but in Illinois they are not in the top three in any of the polls I had seen. That would be all right because in the voting system I am proposing they could focus on the states they ARE popular in within the certain region and try to use that popularity to gain supporters in other states of the same region. So Paul might focus on Illinois while Santorum could go to Minnesota since they are in the top three in Iowa and Rick Perry, who is 5th in Iowa, could stay in Iowa and build up his poll numbers.
The pro’s of the regions voting at the beginning of the month would be that with the voting out of the way they can focus on the next region. (For example, if the Midwest voted today, then the candidates can focus on the New England states the rest of the month, with voting coming up about February 3rd) The pro’s of the states voting at the end of the month would be that the candidates can focus squarely on that particular region. (for instance, the candidates can focus on the South states leading up to voting on January 31st) One thing I would see with this is that all of the voting and tabulations would be done by May which means that the nominee would have three months to find a running mate and get the grassroots campaign at least started by getting the main headquarters set up before the convention. Then the day after they give their acceptance speech they can get started on their general election campaign.
There might be more pro’s and con’s for both scenarios, but they might come in another blog entry. If any have any pro’s or con’s to what I had posted, please mention in comments or in my Instant Messengers or social media outlets.