Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Archive for the ‘Conservatives’ Category

A Parallel Universe Without Progressives 

An astrophysicist, Ranga-Ram Chary at the European Space Agency’s Planck Space Telescope data center at CalTech says he may have found evidence of alternate or parallel universes by looking back in time to just after the Big Bang more than thirteen billion years ago.

Then there is always the possible parallel universe of dark matter. As researchers learn more about dark matter’s complexities, it seems possible that our galaxy lives on top of a shadow galaxy without us even knowing it.

I have often heard it said the universe is so large that anything we can imagine exists somewhere.  Taking that as a starting point for a flight of fancy, let’s imagine a parallel universe without Progressives.

We wouldn’t have had the 16th amendment.  Therefore we would still have a land without personal income tax and the Federal Government would have lived on fees and tariffs as it always did before the Progressives secured a source of money large enough to spend us into oblivion.

We wouldn’t have had the 17th amendment and the senators would still be selected by the State legislators.  This was one of the checks and balances the Founders embedded in the original Constitution to protect the federal nature of the Federal Government.  The House represents the people and the Senate was supposed to represent the States.

We wouldn’t have had The Creature from Jekyll Island, the Federal Reserve System, and America’s representative of the international banking cartel.  Without the Fed to mismanage the money supply there would never have been the banking crisis of the early 1930s.  This is crisis that set the stage for the re-boot of America’s free economy as a centrally-planned command and control machine used to transform every sector of American life.

We wouldn’t have had Woodrow Wilson to take us into the War to End all Wars that ended up building up the three largest empires in the world and setting the stage of WWII.

We wouldn’t have had FDR to impose fascist economic forms on America extending what would have been a recession into the Great Depression.

We wouldn’t have had JFK to lose his nerve in 1961.  Thus the Castro brothers and their murderous savagery would have fallen with the successful Bay of Pigs invasion.

We wouldn’t have had LBJ to build a Great Society safety net that has become a hammock entrapping uncounted millions and generations in the snare of dependency.

We wouldn’t have had BHO to fundamentally transform America into a falling empire and a soon to be third world backwater.

And we wouldn’t have HRC campaigning for president as Mrs. Santa Clause promising to give everyone who doesn’t work everything they want while she seeks to take the Second Amendment from the rest of us.

Think about this; look at how our government treats citizens now as taxing units or dependent voting units and we are armed to the teeth.  Imagine how they will treat us once we are disarmed.  Many believe the Second Amendment makes all the others possible.

Just imagine a parallel universe without Progressives.  It’s easy if you try.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion.  He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2016 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

Trump Trumps Never-Trump

The Perpetually Re-elected Progressive Elite, the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream media, and their pet poodle pundits make fun of Trump by calling him a “Reality TV Star.”  They just don’t get it. Half the country wishes they were reality TV Stars.  They say he is brash, uncouth, and disrespectful to the army of political hacks he has been and will confront. They just don’t get it. People want someone who will stand up for the Country Party in the face of the Government Party that has controlled both major parties for so long.

The list of disconnects between the imperial rulers in Chicago-on-the-Potomac and the great unwashed out here in fly-over country is massive.  It is easily more than enough to define a complete breakdown in the social contract of a limited government.  A social contract forged in the Declaration of Independence and enshrined in the Constitution which defines the legitimacy of the current regime.

The Progressive megaphones tell us this is the strongest economy in American History and that President Obama is the greatest chief executive of modern times.  They even fantasize about the “Obama Boom.”  Working people laugh when you try to sell them this obvious propaganda. The government tells us that we have reached full employment.  Anyone who reads should know that over ninety-three million able bodied Americans no longer work and only a little over 150 million are working.  Yet the government tells us there is 5% unemployment when the numbers say it is closer to 40%.  Our leaders tell us there is no inflation no matter how many trillions of fiat dollars they print, and all of us who shop for our own food, buy our own clothes, or pay utility bills know otherwise.

They tell us we won the war in Iraq.  We may have won it by the time King George II left but since Prince Obama got his hands on it ISIS tells us we haven’t.  Our leaders say we have won in Afghanistan.  Everyone in the world knows that the minute we leave the Taliban roll right back into Kabul and the sock puppets we have been supporting all these years as the leaders of a democratic Afghanistan will be flying to Switzerland in 747s filled with American taxpayer’s cash.  We are told Obamacare is a great success. Anyone who had insurance before it started knows that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor has to be tempered by increased fees, increased deductibles, increased co-payments, and decreased covered services.

They tell us and they tell us and they tell us, we just don’t believe them anymore.

If these belchers of beltway bromides think every day working Americans swallow any of this they have seriously underestimated our intelligence, our interest, and our attention spans.

I have the opportunity to travel the country throughout the year.  I take what some call back roads, the secondary roads that parallel America’s vast Interstate system and that still goes through small towns instead of bypassing them and homogenizing everywhere in to anywhere.  I try to stop at Mom-and-Pop restaurants and take every opportunity possible to talk with people about the issues of the day.  Here’s what I find, Trump, Trump, Trump.

I believe the polls are skewed.  Perhaps people don’t want to say they are for Trump because they know the pollsters will look down on them as simple country bumpkins, racists, or reactionary supporters of old dead white guys.  Perhaps they are talking to those who are at home when the workers are busy working.  Whatever the reason I believe, and I predict that Trump is going to beat Hillary like a drum.  He is going to win in a landslide, and he is going to drag the Republican Party that tried to reject him along for the ride.  I am predicting that due to his wave election coattails the Republicans will increase their majorities in the House and the Senate.

What is the cause of this phenomenon?  Generations of politicians who run as outsiders and who become insiders as soon as they enter the moral and patriotic black hole and before they start swirling in the DC drain to their life-time pensions.  Generations of politicians who sold us out in so-called free trade deals that gave others a free pass into our markets while keeping their own locked to us.  Generations of politicians who have spent us into oblivion, printed more money that there is paper, and borrowed so much money from other nations that we are now the world’s greatest debtor.

So who is to blame for the coming over throw of the twin headed bird of prey that is the Government Party of Power: the politicians themselves. Living in their bubble asking why those who have no bread don’t eat cake they have no idea of what is coming.  Their pollsters are polling themselves and providing the information their paymasters want to see.  And all the while out here in the Heartland a tsunami is brewing that will wash them all away.

To paraphrase what Phil Ochs said so long ago,

In tattered tuxedos they faced the new heroes
And crawled about in confusion
All the hands raised, they stood there amazed
In the shattering of their illusions

Many of the nattering nabobs of negativism who dominate the 24 hour news cycle have been waiting expectantly for Trump to make one mega-gaff that will destroy his campaign.  To hear them crow you would believe he made it when he resurrected the phrase, “America First.”

First used as the name of a widely based organization that sought to keep us out of World War Two.  Then it was used in the nineties by Pat Buchanan in his prescient campaign to save America from the one-worlders.  The left has done their best to make this a catch phrase for defeat because they hate not only what it says but what it implies.  The Elite political class has sought to make it an unutterable phrase condemned by political correctness and exiled because in their minds to even say America First is to defile their one world religion.  They may believe they have tarnished the concept with 75 years of negative propaganda and indoctrination but still 57% of American citizens believe in America First, they want an America First foreign policy, an America First trade policy, and an America First immigration policy.  They want an America First president.

My prediction: After all is said and done, after all the dust settles, after Crooked Hillary goes home to lick her wounds, after the neo-con talking heads and their K-Street financiers realize the prize has slipped from their hands it will end up that Trump Trumps Never-Trump.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion.  He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2016 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

 

We Are Getting There One Person at a Time -Palin Endorsed Jason Smith Wins MO Special Election in Landslide, Gets Congrats from Mama Grizzly!

By Gary P Jacksonjasonsmith2013a

In the Missouri special election held Tuesday night Jason Smith won his race in a landslide, with 67 percent of the vote.

Mr Smith will go to Washington!

Sarah Palin who endorsed Smith tweeted her congratulationsFrom Ed Harris the Chairman of the Missouri GOP:

On Tuesday night, conservative Republican Jason Smith was elected to Congress in a landslide. He finished with 67 percent of the vote, 40 points ahead of his Democratic opponent. Smith, who’s representing Missouri’s Eighth Congressional District, will be a reliable vote against amnesty and common core, and for life, traditional marriage and the Constitution. Just 32 years old, he will be one of the youngest members of Congress.

Smith has more in common with Rush Limbaugh than he does with Chris Christie. In fact, his district includes Cape Girardeau, Limbaugh’s hometown. The Eighth District runs from Missouri’s southeastern boot heel clear up the Mississippi River to just south of St. Louis County, and then dives down to the Arkansas border. It’s a rural, conservative district — so conservative that Smith’s Democratic opponent ran on a pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, anti-Obamacare platform.

Smith himself has a long track record of conservatism. He grew up on a farm in Dent County. In college, he’d drive from Dent County to Maries County to pick up yard signs calling on Missouri’s then-governor, Democrat Mel Carnahan, to accept the will of Missourians and not veto a bill banning partial-birth abortion. He then helped distribute those signs across the state.

He’s been busy since college. He’s gotten a law degree, started a small business, worked on his family farm and run for office. In 2005, he was elected to the Missouri House. Once there, he backed tax cuts, Second Amendment protections and general good government laws.

In addition to being a small-government conservative, Smith has an easygoing personality that allows him to make friends easily and avoid angering people. At a recent fundraiser in St. Louis, former U.S. Senator Jack Danforth said that Smith is “more conservative than me and one of the best guys I know.” High praise from a man who disagrees with Smith on a number of issues.

I spent Tuesday night with Smith in southern Jefferson County. Shortly after the polls closed, it became clear that he was going to win easily. I was excited for him and wanted to talk about his swearing-in. But Smith was too superstitious to discuss any of that before all the votes had been counted. Instead, he talked about how he spent the last hours of Election Day at a quiet spot on his Salem, Missouri farm.

Now he’s off to D.C., where he’ll try to save our republic. I like his chances.

Let us add our congratulations as well, and hope this is just a taste of what is to come in 2014!

Ben Carson’s Interesting and Surprising Policy Positions

ben carsonDr. Ben Carson is a conservative star on the rise, but at least one of his policy ideas might cause the Republican leadership to do a double-take. In an interview with The Daily Caller, Carson said he opposed the invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The famed neurosurgeon and rising conservative voice said he sent a letter to President George W. Bush sometime after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and before the U.S. invaded Iraq in March 2003.

“I actually wrote President Bush a letter before the war started and I said, you know, what I would do is I would use the bully pulpit at this moment of great national unity and, very much in a Kennedy-esque type fashion, say within 10 years we’re going to become petroleum independent,” Carson told TheDC.
Dr. Ben Carson is a conservative star on the rise, but at least one of his policy ideas might cause the Republican leadership to do a double-take. In an interview with The Daily Caller, Carson said he opposed the invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The famed neurosurgeon and rising conservative voice said he sent a letter to President George W. Bush sometime after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and before the U.S. invaded Iraq in March 2003.

“I actually wrote President Bush a letter before the war started and I said, you know, what I would do is I would use the bully pulpit at this moment of great national unity and, very much in a Kennedy-esque type fashion, say within 10 years we’re going to become petroleum independent,” Carson told TheDC.

Ads by Google
Cheap Alaska Cruises
Alaska Cruises On Sale! See The Deals Here.
AlaskaCruises.com
Seminario de Financiera
Llegando al área de Tampa FL Abril 1-4. ¡Registrese Hoy!
RichDadEducationSeminars.com
“And that would’ve been much more effective than going to war because, first of all, the moderate Arab states would’ve been terrified. And they would’ve handed over Osama Bin Laden and anybody else we wanted on a silver platter to keep us from doing that.”

“Most importantly,” he added, “the terrorists will be defunded, and that’s the way you get to them.”

The reluctance to attack Iraq might qualify as a mainstream position these days, at least outside of the Republican Party. More surprising, however, is Carson’s claim that he would not have gone to war in Afghanistan — an action that was generally viewed as an act of self-defense at the time. And on other issues, Carson is also carving out independent positions.

Carson has become a conservative favorite since his February speech critiquing some of President Obama’s health care and tax policies at the National Prayer Breakfast — with the commander-in-chief listening to him on the dais – though he has said he is an independent. Shortly after the February speech, Carson appeared as an honored guest on a special episode of Fox News’ “Hannity” and last weekend he gave a rousing address at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Some have even suggested the sixty-one year old who rose from nothing to become one of America’s most celebrated doctors and a Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient should run for president in 2016. Carson, who announced over the weekend that he is retiring from his medical practice later this year, has said he would do so only if God compels him.
Despite the enthusiasm in certain conservative quarters, Carson has not articulated his position on a host of issues that matter to Republican voters, primarily because he has yet to be asked about them.

Carson told TheDC in an phone interview Tuesday that had he been president after the Sept. 11 attacks, he would have avoided an invasion of Afghanistan, given the country’s history.

“I personally would not have [gone to war in Afghanistan] because, you know, you’ve got to look at the history of Afghanistan,” he said. “You’ve got 300 tribal leaders throughout the country who have never been united in anything so who are you going to negotiate with? How are you going to achieve peace in a situation like that?”

Carson says he would have used an unspecified type of covert action to go after al-Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein instead.

“I would’ve used everything at our disposal, but not necessarily made public what I was doing,” he said.

“I would have certain goals, one of which was to get rid of Saddam. And I think there are a lot of ways that can be done. And then there are ways that you can infiltrate societies and take advantage of knowledge that is gained. One of our big problems, I think, is we go around broadcasting everything that we’re going to do. And we give our enemies a tremendous advantage when we do that. There’s absolutely no reason that we should be doing that.”

Don’t mistake Carson for an isolationist, however.

“As the pinnacle nation in the world, we play a critical role in the direction of the world,” he said. “I think we have to be active.”

Carson maintains this independent strain on domestic topics as well. On the topic of gay marriage, Carson said he doesn’t believe “anyone from any group has the right to redefine a major pillar of society.” But, he added, “any two consenting adults have the right to formalize a relationship between them.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/19/ben-carsons-most-surprising-policy-positions/#ixzz2OYznuddn

A Slow Motion Revolution Gathers Speed

The Progressives in both parties may be the establishment now but they have always been and continue to be revolutionaries seeking to turn the American dream into a socialist nightmare.

Since the 1890s the Progressives have worked to change our American Experiment from a federal republic operating on democratic principles that recognized our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness into a democracy where the government grants rights and pursues its own happiness.

Inch by inch, step by step they have worked to change one aspect and then another until today the cacophony of minute changes has become a centrally-planned federally orchestrated symphony playing Hail to the Chief.

We have transitioned from federal republic into an imperial bureaucracy controlled by a Chicago raised Alinsky style outfit determined to reduce us to abject obedience.  This is the direct result of an education system captured by the Progressives delivering generations of uninformed voters and of the entitlement society delivering a near majority of citizens who get more than they give from the federal trough.

This should be no surprise to anyone.  A country once famous for the political engagement of its citizens has raised generations on the dictum that neither religion nor politics were the subject of polite debate.  The culture of media-hyped sports addiction and hedonistic indulgence has produced millions who know more about their favorite team or about the latest fashion than about their own government.

I don’t know about you but I’m so tired of being lectured by people who get their news from Leno, Colbert, or the Daily Show that I have all but stopped speaking of anything of substance with most people.  We have all developed ways to identify fellow patriots.  We listen for anyone to say anything that will give us an indication that here is another American who realizes where we are and from where we have fallen.  Then we have great conversations, comparing observations and trying to encourage each other that the United States as we have known it will survive four more years of America’s Chavez.

Often I wonder, are we just singing to the choir, lighting a candle in the dark, or sticking our thumb in the dyke?  Will our clandestine discussions on the fringes of a complacent society make any difference?  Or are we merely whistling in the wind as our beloved country changes forever into the dead letters of a living constitution?

We have to admit that the Progressives have out maneuvered and out organized those dedicated to limited government.  They have turned the world upside down.  They captured the Corporations Once Known as the Main Stream Media turning them into a propaganda arm dedicated to suppressing the truth and giving the government party all the cover they need to do anything they want.  They radically empowered the federal bureaucracy ceding it powers granted to Congress to set policy and make law.  This red-tape machine has grown to become the largest organization in the world.  It is ever-expanding and filled with career people dedicated to enlarging their private kingdoms and increasing the power of the nomenclature at the expense of the people.

The courts have been packed, the banks have been bought off, and the unions use legally mandated dues to support candidates and policies their unwilling members don’t want.  Check and check-mate.  The situation has become so dire and the hour so late that it appears the only line of defense we have left between the USA and the USSA is a House of Representatives controlled by Progressive Republicans.

These Progressive Republicans want the same things as their Democrat counterparts: bigger government and more power even if they may want to drive us to the poor house a little slower.

There are a few younger ones who have been elected by the Tea Party such as Rand, Lee, and Cruz who are trying to make a difference.  At every step the Progressive establishment in their own party tries to ridicule them into toeing the party line of compromise and surrender.  The old bulls talk conservative to get elected then join hands across the aisles in a marriage of despotism with deceit.

The further we get from the puzzle factory in Washington one would think the closer we would get to our American heritage of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  However, the same uninformed disengaged voters form the majority all the way down to the precinct level.  The community organizers have done their jobs very well.  Try to name a state that isn’t in debt.  Try to name a county that isn’t working to install Agenda 21, promote sustainability or cram its Master Plan down the throat of an unsuspecting public.  Try to name a city, town, or village that doesn’t have its good old boy network that manages to stay in power year after year.

Several years ago after an unsuccessful attempt to unseat an entrenched state senator from a gerrymandered district my wife and I decided to become involved on the local level to try and make a difference.  We spent several years battling Agenda 21 while watching the good old boys win by hook or by crook either ignoring or fooling the voters.  Maybe it’s because I grew up in Chicago and was raised on the milk of “You can’t fight City Hall?”  Maybe it’s because I have seen bribes work and honest petitions fall on deaf ears?  Maybe I’m just a cynic at heart?  Maybe it’s true that a pessimist is what an optimist calls a realist?

Although we shall not go gently into that good night it appears we are in the twilight of our Republic and about to enter the sunset of liberty and the dawn of an America with a living constitution, a herd mentality, and a cradle-to-grave welfare state.  If the bell has not tolled yet it is about to.  Even if the Obama Zombies don’t flock to the polls as directed and return Nancy Polosi as Speaker of the House so that a one party state can drive the final nail in Columbia’s coffin, the swelling debt will eventually bring collapse.  This is of course the end result of the Progressive’s long march towards the realization of the Cloward-Piven Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis.  After the collapse these social planners believe they can impose any type of system they want on a public clamoring for relief.

Ready or not here it comes………………………..

So what can we do now that it has been done?

First of all we have to educate ourselves about American History and the principles of limited government.  Principles which formed the cornerstone for our two century experiment with personal liberty, individual freedom, and economic opportunity so that we can educate future generations about who we were and what we hope someday to be once again.  We can’t teach what we don’t know.

Then we have to build a library of books and DVD’s that tell the story of America.  For books look for reading lists at Tea Party sites, also check out conservative media people such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck for suggested readings.  For DVD’s the History Channel has produced many great series on such things as the Revolution, the Constitution, the Founders, etc.  Individually or in local groups create an asset that our people can use to immerse themselves in the heritage of freedom.

Finally we need to stay engaged in the political process.  Become involved with likeminded people and figure out what, where, and when is the best place for you to spend our political capital.  None of us is as smart as all of us so if we all look for the way back to limited government eventually a spark will be ignited that will burn with the intensity of a thousand suns and a new chapter in freedom will begin.

Until that time do what you can do.  It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.

Keep the faith.  Keep the peace.  We shall overcome.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion.  He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2013 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

 

Roger Ailes: Barack Obama ‘lazy,’ Joe Biden ‘dumb as an ashtray’

roger_ailes_a_lIn a new biography of Roger Ailes by Zev Chafets, the man who runs Fox News said that Barack Obama is “lazy,” and Joe Biden is “dumb as an ashtray,” Newsmax reported Wednesday, citing an excerpt of “Roger Ailes: Off Camera” posted at Vanity Fair.

“Obama’s the one who never worked a day in his life. He never earned a penny that wasn’t public money,’’ he said in response to Hilary Rosen’s statement that Ann Romney “never worked a day in her life.”

“He never earned a penny that wasn’t public money. How many fund-raisers does he attend every week? How often does he play basketball and golf? I wish I had that kind of time. He’s lazy, but the media won’t report that,” he added.

According to ObamaGolfCounter.com, President Obama has played 115 rounds of golf since his first day in office.

Even though he called Obama lazy, Ailes said the president tagged himself with that description in an interview with Barbara Walters in 2011.

“Deep down, underneath all the work I do, I think there’s a laziness in me,” Obama said, attributing it to his upbringing in Hawaii.

Thinking about vice presidents he has known, Ailes said he had a “soft spot” for Biden.

“I like him,” he said. “But he’s dumb as an ashtray.”

After Biden’s many gaffes and recent statements about the proper use of shotguns for self-defense, many conservatives would tend to agree.

In mid-February, for example, Biden said that a shotgun was easier for women to handle than the lighter AR-15.

Later that month, he told “Field and Stream” that he once advised a man to “just fire the shotgun through the door” to protect his home.

During the 2012 campaign, Biden made a number of strange statements.

Last September, for example, he overstated the number of troops in Afghanistan by over 580,000. Earlier, he said that the great cities of the world are in China, not the United States. He also claimed that the raid to take out terror mastermind Osama bin Laden was the “most audacious” plan in 500 years.

Earlier in September, Biden allowed himself to be photographed with a female biker sitting in his lap.

Despite being “lazy” and “dumb,” however, Obama and Biden won last November’s election.

Tax receipts on pace to hit record $2.7T this year, congressional report says

irs_buildingexteriorAs President Obama launches into the next phase of budget negotiations with Congress, recent estimates may lend credence to Republican claims that the federal coffers are well fed on taxes.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates the federal government is on pace to bring in a record $2.7 trillion in tax receipts this fiscal year.
The increase reflects a steady post-recession rise in revenues. They ticked up 6 percent in 2012, but according to the CBO could jump 11 percent in 2013.
The expected tax boost comes after Congress and the White House struck an eleventh-hour deal at the start of the year that allowed for an increase in tax rates for top earners, and for the expiration of a 2-point payroll tax cut. The agreement will play a big role in boosting revenues this year — and is also the No. 1 reason cited by Republicans for not wanting to agree to more tax increases as part of a new budget deal.
“The president got $650 billion of higher taxes on the American people on January the 1st,” House Speaker John Boehner told NBC’s “Meet the Press” over the weekend. “How much more does he want?”
Obama, though, said at the start of the first Cabinet meeting of his second term Monday that he wants to continue to push for “the kind of balanced approach of spending cuts, revenues, entitlement reform that everybody knows is the right way to do things.”
According to historical figures from the White House, the last tax revenue record was set in 2007, when the government raked in nearly $2.6 trillion. By 2009, tax revenue took a dive, before gradually building back up.
The CBO shows that, as a percentage of GDP, revenue is still below the 40-year average of 18 percent. The 2013 figure would represent 16.9 percent of GDP — a full point higher than it was the year before.
The IRS has benefited from a bounty of sources, from increases in corporate income taxes to increases in estate and excise taxes.
Meanwhile, spending is on pace to hit $3.55 trillion in 2013, roughly what it was in 2012. According to the CBO, that represents 22.2 percent of GDP — “a share that is still larger than in any year between 1986 and 2008.”
While Republicans say spending is the problem, both sides agree that cutting discretionary spending alone — or the annual spending that doesn’t go to programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — will not solve America’s debt and deficit crisis.
With the enactment of the sequester, Congress will cut deeper and deeper into discretionary spending. But costly entitlements will continue to grow, driving up the U.S. debt and also the annual interest taxpayers pay on that debt.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/05/tax-receipts-on-pace-to-hit-record-27t-this-year-congressional-report-says/#ixzz2Mlt4BRmD

Sen. Ron Johnson: Conservatives Must Reignite the Battle


Senator Ron Johnson: My story began from a standpoint of political life and about September of 2009, when I was asked to speak at a Tea Party in October that year, and people came to me as a business person and said “Would you talk to us about the harmful effect of government regulation on business?” I said, “Well, I’m happy to talk, but that’s not what I want to talk about.” If you remember, that was the summer of 2009 and that was during the debate over Obamacare, and this is not an exact quote — I would call it maybe an unkind paraphrase — but this is exactly what President Obama meant. He said “Those greedy, money-grubbing doctors, they’ll take out a set of tonsils or amputate a foot for a few extra bucks.”

Now, I found that offensive on so many different levels, but in particular, I found it offensive because our first child, our daughter, Carey, was born with a congenital heart defect. Her aorta and pulmonary artery were reversed, and so the first day of life, she was rushed down to Milwaukee Children’s Hospital where one of those “greedy, money-grubbing doctors” came in at 1:30 in the morning and saved her life with a procedure. And then eight months later when her heart was the size of a small plum, another group of incredibly dedicated medical professionals totally rebaffled the upper chamber of her heart. Her heart operates backwards now, but for about the last five years, she has been working as a nurse in a neonatal intensive care unit. Now, she’s taking care of those little babies. She was studying to be a nurse practitioner. She graduated this summer and she got a job back at Milwaukee Children’s Hospital and a couple of weeks ago, unbeknownst to her, the doctor that saved her life was doing grand rounds. He’s retired now. So it’s kind of a nice little closing of that circle.

But the reason I like to tell that story, and the reason it sets up my talk, is the reason my story has a happy ending — our story has a happy ending – is because my wife Jane and I, we had the freedom — the freedom — to call up Boston Children’s Hospital, call up Chicago Children’s, talk to the best surgeons in the world to find out what is the most advanced surgical technique. That’s why Carey turned out so well. That’s what’s at stake. That’s the story I told during that Tea Party speech. I also, by the way, during that speech, defended big pharma and big oil. Silly me, I actually want lifesaving new drugs, and maybe I’m the only guy that drives his gas tank down to five miles and I’m kind of happy there is a gas station on virtually every corner in America. (Laughter).

So people came up to me after that speech and said “I liked your speech, I liked your speech. Why don’t you run for office?” Well, my reply was universal, “Because I’m not crazy.” (Laughter). “And who would want to go through what Michelle Bachman went through? Who would want to do that? Who would want to subject themselves to that process?” Well, a couple of months later, they passed Obamacare, and I certainly recognized what an assault on our freedom that represents, how that is going to destroy the quality of healthcare, that medical innovation that we have come to expect. Let’s face it, medical miracles are produced here in America and, oh, by the way, it’s going to be the final nail in the coffin in terms of just bankrupting this country. So I stepped up to the plate and now I’m there. Yikes! What a process that is. (Applause).

But when I entered politics, the theme I wanted for my campaign was freedom. We are in a fight for freedom. It’s very sad. This country — I call it — it’s a 236-year-old experiment, something precious, but after 236 years, we are still in the same fight for freedom that our founding fathers found themselves in. It sad, but it’s just true. We’re always going to be in that fight. And what is amazing, what is sad, is the reason that we’re in that fight is because far too many Americans have either forgotten. What’s even more sad is they were never taught the foundation, the premise of this nation and it simply this. It’s that government is necessary. Our founders understood that, but it’s not here to solve our problems. Our founding fathers realized that government, by and large, was something to fear because as it grew, our freedoms receded just necessarily. So now today, far too many Americans are looking to the government to solve their problems. I can’t tell you how much it drives me nuts when people come up and say “What’s your jobs program?” My jobs program is dismantle that beast.

Audience Member: Right.

Senator Ron Johnson: But now, as a result of that attitude, that cultural shift, that amnesia, now far too many Americans are willingly trading their freedom and ours at the ballot box for a very unfulfilled promise of economic security. It’s just not working. How did we get ourselves in this position? Well, that’s why I reached out to David Horowitz. He knows. Anybody with white hair here saw it happen in the ’60s when the radicals took over the university system and in particular — I won’t get into all that detail. David Horowitz is obviously far more versed in that, but in particular, when you control our colleges of education, the law, of journalism, of economics — I’ve added that since I’ve been there — you control at our culture. And the left has had lock-step control over our culture now for 40 years.

So it’s not surprising that we have a problem and I don’t know how many of you saw Dr. Benjamin Carson. (Applause). Okay. One of the points he made during that phenomenal speech was how back in the 1800s, the test they gave sixth-graders upon graduation, most college graduates could not pass that test anymore. We have purposely dumbed down our population. As a result of that, our population is very susceptible to demagoguery and that’s what you’re seeing. So what we’re facing now in this country is we’re facing a president that’s basically a demagogue. That’s the problem. I mean, this is what we’re up against. We’re up against a strategy of the left that I always call — it’s diabolically simple; it’s depressingly effective. It’s simply this: addict Americans to government. That’s it; that’s all it is, just addict Americans to government. You can be a congressperson, a new senator, go to Washington, and nobody has got to tell you what you’ve got to do. All you have to do is try and grow government just a little bit, that’s it.

So what’s our response? Well, it hasn’t been very good because we don’t have strategies; we don’t. I hate to tell you this, but we don’t have a strategy, and the difficulty we face because the media is not even not on our side; they’re operating against us. But the example I use for my colleagues — I am (inaudible), but basically, I’m a salesman, and so we’re trying to market ideas here, but here’s what we’re up against. So I use this analogy. The left is giving away candy. You don’t have to buy it; they’re giving it away and it’s tasty stuff. And what are we faced with as conservatives? We’re the folks sitting on the sidelines going “Yes, I know you like that candy, but here’s the problem; it’s caused a cavity. No, it’s even worse than that. That cavity has abscessed and it’s worse than that. That abscess has now caused an infection and it’s in the body and if we don’t cure it, you’re going to die.”

And so the left is still saying “No, no, no, don’t worry about that. Social Security is still solvent.” The left is saying “No, keep eating that candy, it’s really good for you,” and we’re the ones sitting there going “No, we got the shot of Novocain and we’ve got the drill.” Do you understand the challenge? Now, the only way you combat that enormous challenge is you have to have a strategy of your own. What is our strategy? We don’t even have a strategic planning process. In the business world — and that’s the perspective I bring here as a business person. I come into Washington and the first thing I realize, or the first thing I thought, the assumption is that well, we’re a Republican team, right, Louie? The House, the Senate, we are working together. We’re going to utilize the house strategically, pass really good pieces of legislation, put pressure on Harry Reid and President Obama — no, not quite. The House, for the lack of coordination, might as well be 500 miles away. I mean, it’s just incredibly sad.

Let me ask you a question. We spent $6 billion or $7 billion last year during this election. What did America learn? Virtually nothing, nothing true. We learned a falsehood. We learned that if you just make those top 1%, 2% pay their fair share and have a balanced approach, all our problems will be solved. Well, obviously, that’s not going to work. So the solution to the problem here really is information. Our education system has purposely dumbed down our population. We don’t teach American exceptions and we don’t teach history, we don’t teach economics. So with our education system lost to us for decades — unless David can be more successful quicker than I think he can be — we have got to find another venue for reeducating the population, for informing them. We need to find [forced multipliers].

For my own part, what I’m trying to do is I’m trying to tap into a network of individuals, of Americans and patriots, that actually understand what made this country great. I think there is one that exists; I was part of it. That’s small little sliver of American population, that 1%, 1.5% of the American population that own business, operate businesses, manage businesses. You can read about the free market system. You can actually say you believe it, but until you’ve actually operated within it, until you’ve maybe bid on $1 million order, you drop your price 15%, you dramatically improved your quality, you dramatically improved your customer service, and you still lost the order for a penny a pound. That’s the point in time when you realize the wonder and power of a free market competitive system. It’s those individuals that have got to step up to the plate. We’ve got a great deal of credibility that people who work with them, they’ve got to get informed, and they’ve got to spread that information around.

I was at a breakfast meeting of the Business Roundtable about a year ago and the head of Boeing stood up and he said “We’re the Business Roundtable. We represent the largest corporations in America, who I realize are not in good standing with the American public, but that’s a conversation for another day.” I was the first senator to stand up and after that and went right to that comment. I said, “We can’t afford to have that be a conversation for another day.” How did we get into position in this country where businesses are demonized, where the demagoguery against businesses actually works politically? Well, that gets right back to the first part of my speech. The liberals control our universities. We’ve got to get that back.

So I’ve been traveling around the country talking to groups like this, trying to engage people in a strategic planning process, but also to engage their minds to tell them to do what I didn’t do with my company. I never talked to my employees about politics. I kind of thought it was off-limits. Well, it’s not off-limits anymore. We simply can’t afford to make it be off-limits. One of the things we have to do is we have to provide those individuals the tools to start the conversation with their employees. For my part, it sounds a little boring, but I go around and I go to businesses, and I’ve got a 45-minute PowerPoint presentation, and you’re very lucky today. I don’t have a screen and I’m not going to subject you to it. (Laughter). I’ve got a pretty good capability of taking a group of smiling faces and turn them into frowns.

Let me just give you a couple — verbally — a couple of pieces of information from those slides that people simply don’t understand. The first slide really starts out — it’s a graph. It shows the size of government in relationship to the size of our economy. Only 100 years ago, the federal government was 2% of our economy. Back then, state and local governments were 5%, so total government was 7%. Now, the federal government is about 23% on a trajectory to hit 35%. Tack on state and local governments for about 40%, on a trajectory to hit 50%. Now, folks, that is an economic model that simply does not work. I have no idea why anybody wants to go down that path; I have no idea why these Democrats want to control at our lives, but they do.

That’s really the first slide that I really kind of — then I start getting into all the budget information, which I’m not going to talk about today, but the last two slides are not about budgetary statistics. They are about societal statistics, metrics, and they’re given to prove the point that I’m trying to make it, that government is the root cause of the problems, the size, the scope, all the rules, all the regulations, all the government’s intrusion into our lives, and the resulting cost and debt of government. That’s the root cause.

So the first slide — because I’ve been doing this at universities, I put up the cost of college tuition. I’ve got a little bar there in the ’60s where the total cost, tuition, room and board, for a year of college, in the ’60s was about $1,000. Then I show it today. If it would have just grown by the rate of inflation, tuition would have been a little under $7,400, but instead, it’s about $18,000 now, room, board and tuition, 2.4 times the rate of inflation. I asked my audiences “What is so different about higher education that it would actually increase in cost by a rate of 2.4 times the rate of inflation?” I don’t know, just a theory. (Laughter). Inflation went up about a little under 500%, but that cost of college went up by a factor of 1,000%, but government involvement went up by a factor of about 1,500%.

So in all of our good intentions of trying to make college more acceptable — or accessible — we have driven up the cost and we have made it less accessible and really made people dependent on the government and the loans and the fact that we now entice our children to take on debt to the tune of $1 trillion collectively. That’s one of the immoral things we’ve done to our younger generation.

The next slide is really the most dangerous one. It’s about out-of-wedlock birthrates. I don’t know, I think most people in this audience would agree with me, but I think the family is the foundational building block of any successful society. So the slide starts from 1940s to 1966, where out-of-wedlock birthrates went from 4% to 8%. It had doubled. And good people like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat senator — Daniel Patrick Moynihan was pretty concerned about that, wrote about it and spoke about it. The property rates had actually been coming down and the number of people had probably been coming down, but they were still too high. So collectively, we’re a compassionate society. We want to help people that can’t help themselves; we want to help people to help themselves. So collectively, we embarked on a $16 trillion war on poverty — $16 trillion. Just coincident to that, it equals the share of our federal debt.

So the last slide shows the results of that war. Did it work? Well, poverty rates actually — the number of people in poverty went from 23 million to 43 million. Okay, the Population grew, so what about the poverty rate? Well, that went from 12% to 14%. Well, maybe, I asked the audience — maybe — just on really the most dangerous metric here, out-of-wedlock birthrates, maybe that compassionate, that well intentioned war on poverty worked. No, sorry, it went from 8% to 41%. And then I just ask my audience go Google [thought experiment]. How could a government’s involvement, all those good intentions, result in out-of-wedlock birthrates from 8% to 41%? Well, could it be all the incentives we provide people not to get married?

One of the first people I met on the campaign trail was a state senator. His entire stump speech talked about a single mom working hard, who we have a great deal of sympathy for. She makes $15,000 part time; doesn’t pay tax, she gets the earned income tax credit. Then he totals up the dollar value for benefits. His figure came to about $51,000; I’ve kind of gone back and I calculated about $43,000. I asked my audience, now if she wants to increase her take-home pay, what does she do? She has another child out of wedlock, right?

Audience Member: Yes.

Senator Ron Johnson: If she wants to lose it all, she finds somebody to support her and she gets married.

Audience Member: Right.

Senator Ron Johnson: Now, unless we, as a society, are willing to take a look at that, and honestly, with our eyes wide open, take a look at the effect of the unintended consequences of all of our good intentions, we’re never going to solve these problems. That’s some of the information we’ve got to convey. So we’ve got a lot of challenges ahead of us here.

When I emailed David and I asked him what he would like me to talk about, he said, “Well, people are pretty depressed. Why don’t you give them something to be hopeful about?” (Laughter). So that’s a pretty tall order, David, but let me try. During the recall election, as I traveled around the State of Wisconsin, and I talked to the volunteers, I talked to the donors, listen, I knew they were weary, I knew the donors were tapped out. I know you folks, after November 6, let’s face it, that was a body-blow to freedom. So we’re pretty depressed about that. So I understand that totally, but I also understood exactly how obnoxious my response was — tough.

This country is far too precious to give up on it. What gives me hope, what keeps me going is, I don’t know, Dr. Benjamin Carson, that gives me some hope. When I travel around to the universities and I talk to kids, and I slowly lay out the vision of this country, “We hold these truths,” and I see these kids glued to the edge of their seat — I saw the way they responded to Michelle; I saw the way they responded to Ron Paul’s vision of individual liberty, individual freedom. That gives me hope.

Like most members of Congress, what really gives me the most hope is the contact I have with the finest among us. I’ll tell you just one short little story. Most of us go over to Bethesda now. We go — well, Walter Reed now over to Bethesda, and I will admit the first time I went to Walter Reed, it was not something I was looking forward too. I mean, I knew what I was going to see — men and women with horribly broken bodies. I went over to Walter Reed the week before they closed it down and transferred people to Bethesda. I went to the rehabilitation ward and there were 12 members of the military there. Five of them were missing three limbs, and when I say missing three limbs, there’s not much left. One of those men had his beautiful wife and daughter helping him with his rehabilitation, which tells us it’s not just about them. It’s not just their sacrifice; it’s the sacrifice of their mothers, their fathers, their husbands and wives, their sons and daughters.

Another one of those triple amputees I was talking to said “Sir, what I get done with my rehabilitation, I go up to the floor where the new guys come in and kind of take it upon myself to boost their morale.” Where do we find these people? There’s no way that you can leave an experience like that not totally inspired. They’re not giving up; we can’t give up.

Now, my main message here is I’ve traveled around the country and I’m sure, Michelle, you agree, Louie, the American spirit is alive. It might be a little bit imperiled with President Obama in the office here, with Harry Reid as the majority leader, but it’s alive. It’s living in your hearts; it’s certainly living in the hearts of the finest among us. So it’s our job to make sure that it not only survives for future generations, but that it thrives. That’s our task. That is what I am begging you to do, so please stay engaged. This country is worth preserving and it’s up to we, the people, to do just that.

Exclusive–Club for Growth: Culture of Senate Beginning to Change; Cruz, Lee, Paul Will ‘Stand and Fight’

Paul-Cruz-Lee
Chris Chocola, the president of the Club for Growth, told Breitbart News this weekend that establishment Republicans who have no qualms about growing the size of government and benefit from it find the fiscally conservative group to be a nuisance because the Club aggressively identifies conservatives and backs them in Republican primaries.
And when candidates the Club for Growth supports come to Washington, they often do not just “go along to get along,” especially when it comes to matters regarding taxes and spending.

Case in point: Ted Cruz.

In 2012, establishment Republicans like Karl Rove and American Crossroads preferred Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst over Ted Cruz in the Texas Republican Senate primary, with their donors backing Dewhurst against Cruz. It was the Club for Growth that helped Cruz counter the Rove-approved establishment money that was going to Dewhurst’s campaign in addition to Dewhurst’s considerable wealth, which he used to self-fund his failed Senate run. The Club for Growth spent $5.5 million in independent expenditure ads to support Cruz in his fight against Dewhurst. The group accounted for 83% of all pro-Cruz outside spending.
While Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Cruz ultimately got the attention of and galvanized Tea Partiers and conservatives to ensure Cruz got into the runoff against Dewhurst, the Club for Growth’s money ensured Cruz could stay on the air against Dewhurst in Texas’s huge and expensive media markets.
Rove, in stark contrast, said on Fox News’ “Hannity” after Cruz won the primary that Texas had “three good candidates” in that race, meaning Rove, unlike the Club for Growth, would have been perfectly content with the more moderate candidates like Dewhurst who would not fight in Washington, D.C.

Last year, the group emphasized that it committed “to do everything within our power to ensure Cruz won the primary” and “went all in and it did so because it is absolutely critical to the future of our nation that we have a true fiscal conservative representing the state of Texas in the United States Senate.”

“This race was one of the most important races going on in our nation and we are so proud of the pivotal role Club for Growth Action played in ensuring that Ted Cruz will be the next Senator from the state of Texas,” the group said a day after Cruz defeated Dewhurst in the primary. “Ted Cruz is a champion of economic freedom and we look forward to seeing him fight for America in the Senate.”

And that’s exactly what Cruz has done since arriving in Washington, D.C., voting against John Kerry to be the next Secretary of State and fiercely questioning President Barack Obama’s Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel to the point where liberals have resorted to calling him a “McCarthyite.”
Chocola noted the Republican establishment often views the types of candidates the Club for Growth supports as “threats to the big-government status quo” that Republicans often help enable.

“We’ll continue to support candidates like Ted Cruz, Pat Toomey and Marco Rubio,” Chocola told Breitbart News. “They’ll continue to support candidates like David Dewhurst, Arlen Specter, and Charlie Crist. It’s that simple.”

Chocola added that in part because of the group’s efforts, those in Congress are talking about “spending less money, not simply slowing the rate of growth of spending.”

“That’s a sea-change, and we’re looking to build on that momentum,” Chocola said, before adding that the group’s goal was to get a “majority of the majority” in Congress.

The full interview with Chocola is below.

Breitbart News: Given the success of Club for Growth in supporting free market principles, policies and candidates, what do you make of the attacks—often behind closed doors—by establishment figures like Karl Rove and Haley Barbour regarding your involvement in Republican primaries?

Chris Chocola: We’re not surprised at all. The Republican establishment has always viewed the types of candidates supported by our PAC as threats to the big-government status quo that the GOP often helps enable. We’ll continue to support candidates like Ted Cruz, Pat Toomey and Marco Rubio. They’ll continue to support candidates like David Dewhurst, Arlen Specter, and Charlie Crist. It’s that simple.

Breitbart News: What are Club for Growth’s key objectives for 2013?

Chris Chocola: We want to continue to grow the pro-growth caucus by supporting strong, fiscally conservative candidates through our PAC. We are hoping that the candidates the PAC has helped elect are helping to drive the agenda within the Republican Party. We’ll be watching closely to see if Republicans stand strong on sequestration and the continuing resolution. We’ll be urging them to cut spending and put us on a path to a balanced budget within 10 years. The whole purpose of the Club for Growth is to encourage policies that lead to a high-growth economy, and we’re very concerned that our growing debt burden and uncertainty about our economic future is holding us back. All we’ve ever wanted from Congress is responsible behavior, and we think that message is beginning to percolate throughout capitol hill. For the first time in a long time, members of Congress are talking about spending less money, not simply slowing the rate of growth of spending. That’s a sea-change, and we’re looking to build on that momentum.

Breitbart News: When you look at specific policy proposals—such as those dealing with the debt ceiling, the deficit, the fiscal cliff, and federal spending in general—do you think the Club is winning the war of war of ideas among the Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Chris Chocola: We take pride in our ability to advocate for free markets and limited government, but it’s really the new members we’ve helped elect through our PAC that are driving policy. It’s because of members of Congress like Jeff Flake and Pat Toomey that earmarks are banned. It’s because of members like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and Mike Lee that the culture of the Senate is beginning to change. We supported those members and others because of what they believe, and they will stand and fight for their principles. Our goal is to get a majority of the majority. We’re not there yet, but the changes that have happened within the Republican Party on policy over the past decade because of the Club for Growth and its members is undeniably positive.
– See more at: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/24/Club-for-Growth-Interview#sthash.CWHLfbzA.dpuf

Nothing But Down-side to Top-Two Primaries

There was a strong push in the last Arizona election cycle to disenfranchise political parties by turning the Arizona Primary election into a “round one general election” in which there would be a single ballot with all candidates listed on it without regard to party affiliation, but only the top two vote-getters from the Primary would be on the General Election ballot.  Some very good political thinkers were involved at least in conceptualizing this ballot proposition.  The proposition failed by a two to one margin

military voting

The main thing the proposition was designed to do was to give independents (voters not affiliated with any party) a greater say in the primary.  There are certain good things about today’s party system; it allows people with common political views to identify their positions on issues (platform) and to select candidates who will run for office in the general election.  The founding fathers were not fond of political parties; but parties in their times were specific special interest factions such as merchants, or lawyers, or veterans, or bankers, or planters.  The political parties spoken of by Washington and his contemporaries were what we would now call lobbyists or political action committees (PACs).

Today’s parties are made up of voters with diverse professions, economic stations, races, educational levels, and lifestyle, and serve primarily as a vetting process for candidate selection. party) more say in Primary elections.  To me that alone doesn’t make any sense because primary elections are elections in which political parties nominate their candidates.  Independents are independents because they don’t support party politics.  Arizona already does something that I think is very bad in that they allow independents to vote in one primary of any party they wish. To me nobody except party members should have a say in who the party nominates..  I’m glad it did because I think it was a very bad idea.

Even minor parties have played a significant role in shaping our politics.  By presenting their views to the public they have caused the two major parties to adjust to attract those voters.  Two examples are the Socialist Party who originated the idea of vast social programs and redistribution of wealth, and the Libertarian Party who has pushed for a more stringent compliance with the constitution and lest government involvement in the lives of citizens.  Both of these minor parties have never reached the number of supporters needed to enact their policies, but the Democrats have adapted many of the aims of the Socialist Party, and the Republicans have adjusted to the right in response to the ideas of the Libertarian Party.

One problem with a top two primary is that it does not give the voter more choices but limits them to only two in the general election.  A second problem is that in a district in which one party dominates, no other party has a chance to make it on the ballot, both general candidates could be from the same party.  It would virtually illuminate all minor party candidates from ever getting on a general ballot.

Many independents say there is no difference between the two parties; however, even the most cursory review of their stand on issues reveals that as false. The main causes of independent discontent with the two major parties can be categorized as: 1) They are all professional politicians who are mostly concerned with feathering their own nest and being reelected, and 2) They can’t work together to get anything done.

I think Item one is partly true; I do believe that many people in congress have a genuine desire to do what’s right, but their view may differ from that of many of their voters.  They have elevated themselves to a special class that is paid much more than the average voter, has amazing perks and benefits, and gives them special exceptions to things the rest of us live with every day.  When congress was first given an annual salary in 1855 it was $3000; comparing the consumer price index of 1855 to 2012, that equates to under $12,000 per year in today’s dollar.  Then, being in Congress was a part time job, they spent a couple of months a year mostly approving a budget.

This brings us to item two.  As the founders intended, the federal government dealt with relatively few departments and programs, they didn’t enact many new laws every year, they took care of business and got back their farm, store, law officer, parsonage, etc.  For the last 80 years congress has gotten along too well, they have passed way to many laws, creating way too much government, and spending way too much public revenue.  Any congress that refuses to raise expenditures or increase taxes is a good congress.  Democrats want to keep using the public revenue to buy votes, and Republics want to reverse that process.  In a nutshell that is the difference between the two parties.  I will vote for the senator or representative who refuses to go along with government programs, trillion dollar deficits, and forever increasing taxes.  A “do-nothing” congress is better than a “do-something” congress unless the something being done is cutting spending, cutting government, and cutting taxes.

So since the main accusation is that Democrats and Republicans are the same, you better look again.  And if you want to save the country you better hope the “do-nothings” outnumber the “do-everythings”.