Socialists have always historically believed that they were advancing the cause of human interests in society and the world at large by their policy of taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots in an attempt to level the playing field. For this very reason the two most influential socialist engineers – Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels – created a publication by the name of “Vorwärts”, a German name that translates to English as “Forward”. It was a newspaper that encouraged people to “urge for progress”, and ever since the first issue of Vorwärts was published on October 1, 1876 the word has been used as a generic catch-phrase for avid socialists, communists and other left-wingers across the world. Below is a short list of examples all different language translations of the word forward or adaptations of it…

Avante!, of the Portuguese Communist Party
Avanti!, organ of the Italian Socialist Party
Eteenpäin, Finnish-language newspaper in the United States
Új Előre (‘New Forward’), a Hungarian-language newspaper in the United States
Forverts, commonly known as The Jewish Daily Forward
Vorwärts!, 19th century journal of the Communist League
Vorwärts, the central organ of the Social Democratic Party of Germany published daily in Berlin from 1891 to 1933
Adelante, a Communist-party organ in Cuba.

This list I have compiled as well as some of the information in my opener paragraph I got from a well-cited Wikipedia article entitled, “Forward (generic name of socialist publications)” that was viewable on Wikipedia until recently when the article was conveniently deleted. I first stumbled across the article when my fellow co-host of the Conservative Declaration Talk Show Program, Adam Holtzapple, sent me a link to it along with a picture of Obama’s 2012 campaign marketing slogan that simply reads: “Forward”, with his 2008 Presidential crest replacing the letter “o”. Just this week when Adam and I were preparing for our weekly talk show we went to Wikipedia to pull the original article up and discuss the content therein. Much to our dismay it was gone, and in its stead was a new link for a new article that was no there only days before that said ‘”Forward”, slogan of the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012″. Shocked and perplexed Adam typed in the exact url address and loaded the page, what we found was a little pink box that said, “This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference… 15:09, 9 May 2012 Neutrality (talk | contribs) deleted page Forward (generic name of socialist publications) (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: del following move to user space)”

Obviously the person who deleted this article either works for the Obama camp, or is one of Obama’s most passionate supporters. In fact, chances are better than not that the same person who posted the link to the ‘Forward, slogan for the Obama-Biden 2012′ Wikipedia article is the same person who took down the article about the generic name for socialist publications. This is because Obama has been trying for a long time to shake this whole socialist condensation that people associate with him and his policy. I swear, a week does not go by where I am not engaged in a discussion with an Obama supporter who tells me that Obama is not a socialist, that he’s a liberal or a progressive or any variety of labels that they happen to fancy (as if they don’t all mean the same thing anyway). I find all of this very ironic though that wile trying to get away from the Socialist mantra that they would pick the word Forward to define their 2012 campaign.

I also find it funny that they took the article down when they did, it makes it even more obvious that they are trying to hide something. If I were an undercover socialist conniving to take over the United States within the Democratic party and I decided to name my campaign after a historical socialist catch-phrase and didn’t want people to connect the dots, I am not going to make it look like I’m hiding something by removing information from the internet that will make it obvious that I am covering something up. Now the Obama campaign or this faithful follower who thought he was doing Obama a favor by eliminating the Wikipedia article probably figured that no one would notice it was missing. I mean honestly, what are the chances of someone finding a random Wikipedia article like this, remembering it and then looking it back up after they see Obama’s new campaign slogan and foiling his plot – slim to none. Never the less, hard at work digging as we always are at The Conservative Declaration, we have found it and exposed it. I bet now they wish they had left the article up and pretended that there was no connection, or that it was just a matter of mere coincidence.

Below are some screenshots of the Wikipedia article before, it was removed, now that it is removed and the new link to the Obama 2012 campaign page on Wikipedia. And we can all thank Google’s cache feture for getting a screen shot of the page before it was taken down.

Wikipedia key word search: “Forward” today

“Forward (generic name of socialist publications) Before deletion

After the page was deleted

Let’s explore these statements a little further:

In my estimation, many of his supporters did not do thorough research into all of the candidates running – many of them probably did not do thorough research on “their” candidate, Smith himself. I say this because I believe that if Republicans had seen past the haze of million dollar advertising campaigns and looked into stances on the issues and personal histories of the candidates, Tom Smith would have lost in a landslide.

Smith was a Democrat for 42 years (longer than Barack Obama) and only recently switched to a Republican so he could run in this race. He claims that while he was a Democrat, he was really a conservative ideologue. If one is truly a conservative, why be a member of the Democrat party? The Democrats are the antithesis of the Republicans. If he had been an Independent or even a member of the Libertarian party, his conservative declarations (pun intended) might be easier to buy, but no, he was a Democrat. What happened to the Republicans we always hear playing party politics? You know the type, anything the Republicans do is good, anything the Democrats do is bad – how did a Democrat win such a plurality in a Republican primary?

Voters last night stepped up to the plate and were quick to dismiss Steve Welch for his liberal history, even though he was endorsed by their beloved ‘conservative’ governor and state Republican party. I was pleased to see that people did not buy into the Welch lie, but let’s do a little compare and contrast. Steve Welch voted for Obama in the Democratic primary in 2008, then switched to the Republican party after a 5-year stint as a Democrat. That’s pretty rough, but Tom Smith was a Democrat for 42 years and donated millions of dollars to dozens of Democratic candidates. Who is really worse here? Answer: they are both horrible. I will predict right now that we will have at least 6 more years of Bob Casey. Tom Smith is a mumbling, bumbling, know-nothing who will be torn to pieces by the well-spoken, well-known socialist Bob Casey in November.

The power of advertising and the media is a strong one, and this election proves that if you have big bucks to blow you can purchase an election. Republicans went to the polls last night and supported a 42-year member of the Democrat party over a staunch fiscal and social conservative who has been a lifelong member of the Republican party and held elected office as a member of that party for 18 years. Is anyone else confused? Just when I think I’m beginning to understand the mentality of the mainstream Republican voter they throw me curve ball like this….I guess I’ll never understand what it’s like to have no principles.

But as a conservative who has become very familiar with the liberal media and their tainted view of reality, I can firmly state that declaring Romney the victor is a wee-bit premature. Even if Mitt Romney wins every one of the remaining primaries by a landslide, which the media believes he will, that alone will not give him the required delegates to secure the nomination. So long as there are at least two candidates still in the race come august, there will be a brokered convention where the nominee will have to be decided by the vote of the representative delegates who have been gathering signatures and planning their trip to Tampa for months. These representative delegates will be voted for on every election ballot across America and they will take their delegate signatures with them to Tampa paying out of pocket for airfare, taking time off work and away from their families to cast their vote for the candidate of their choice….and who is more likely to have followers and supporters who are willing to make such a sacrifice? Ron Paul.

Just a few months ago in one of the Republican debates, Mitt Romney said of all the candidates running he was most impressed with Ron Paul and his ability to inspire the most passionate followers who will stand outside in the freezing cold and in the pouring rain for hours waving their signs and chanting for Dr. Paul. For the last several months I have watched Republican voters jump from candidate to candidate that they seemed a little impressed with for a short while, and then picking another candidate after learning something new from their flavor of the month. I have yet to talk to a likely Republican voter who is passionate about voting for any of the candidates – with the exception of Ron Paul. With this all being said I would be very hard pressed to find a Newt or Romney fan who would be willing to make these grueling sacrifices and commitment in going to the convention and voting for their man. Ron Paul is going to sweep house in the brokered convention, the only question is will he be able to take the cake with his fewer electoral delegates combined with the overwhelming amount of convention delegates? Or will Romney’s electoral delegates be enough to make up for his lack of convention delegates to give him the support needed to actually secure the nomination?

This all being said Republican voters in the remaining states have a huge decision to make. If they think about it its really not that difficult a decision to make but none the less a very important decision. Love him or hate him, Newt Gingrich lacks the passionate supporters to show up to the convention and win. I suspect Newt is coming to that harsh reality now which is why I predict he will bow out sooner than later. This race is between two candidates, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. We have a choice between two men to run against Obama in November. See the side by side differences between Romney, Paul and Obama and decide for yourself why should be running against Obama in 2012…

Healthcare:
Obama = Obamacare
Romney = Romneycare
Paul = Never supported any form of government involvement in healthcare.

TARP:
Obama = Voted for TARP
Romney = Supported TARP
Paul = Never supported TARP

Stimulus:
Obama = Voted for Stimulus
Romney = Supported Stimulus
Paul = Never Supported Stimulus

Believes Man-Made Global Warming Theory:
Obama = Yes
Romney = Yes, then No
Paul = No, never

Cap and Trade Carbon Tax:
Obama = Supports Carbon Tax
Romney = Supports Carbon Tax
Paul = Never Supported Carbon Tax

Luxury Tax:
Obama = Supports Luxury Taxes
Romney = Supports Luxury Taxes
Paul = Never Supported Luxury Taxes

Off Shore Drilling:
Obama = Against Off Shore Drilling
Romney = Against Off Shore Drilling
Paul = Allow Off Shore Drilling

Bail Outs:
Obama = Supported Bail Outs
Romney = Supported Bail Outs
Paul = Never Supported Bail Outs

Social Security:
Obama = Keep Social Security
Romney = Keep Social Security
Paul = Create Opt Out/Phase Out of Social Security

Foreign Aid:
Obama = Pro
Romney = Pro
Paul = Con

War:
Obama = Started More Wars
Romney = Wants to Start More Wars
Paul = Bring Troops Home to Defend America

Service to Country:
Obama = Never Served
Romney = Got a military deferment to be a Mormon missionary in France
Paul = Air Force Veteran

100% Pro-Life?:
Obama = No
Romney = No, then Yes
Paul = Yes

GOA Second Amendment Letter Grade:
Obama = F
Romney = D-
Paul = A+

Federal War on Drugs:
Obama = Pro
Romney = Pro
Paul = Con

Federal Reserve:
Obama = Pro
Romney = Pro
Paul = Full Audit of Fed

IRS:
Obama = Pro
Romney = Pro
Paul = Con

TSA:
Obama = Pro
Romney = Pro
Paul = Con

Patriot Act:
Obama = Pro
Romney = Pro
Paul = Con

NDAA:
Obama = Pro
Romney = Pro
Paul = Con

Democrat:
Obama = Currently Democrat
Romney = Former Democrat
Paul = Never a Democrat

Increased Government Spending:
Obama = Yes
Romney = Yes
Paul = Never Voted to Increase Spending

Voted To Increase Taxes:
Obama = Yes
Romney = Yes
Paul = Never

Supported Reagan:
Obama = No
Romney = No
Paul = Yes – in 1976, before it was cool

Corporatism:
Obama = Yes
Romney = Yes
Paul = No

Deficit Spending:
Obama = Yes
Romney = Yes
Paul = No

IMF:
Obama = Yes
Romney = Yes
Paul = No

NAFTA:
Obama = Yes
Romney = Yes
Paul = No

Federal Department of Education:
Obama = Yes
Romney = Yes
Paul = No

Real ID:
Obama = Pro
Romney = Pro
Paul = Con

Major Campaign Backers:
Obama = Goldman Sacks, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup
Romney = Goldman Sacks, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup
Paul = Employees of the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force

Need I go any further? In 2008 John McCain failed to beat Obama in the General Election because he failed to unite the conservative vote. Many Americans voted for the Libertarian Bob Barr, wrote in “Ron Paul” or never showed up to vote in the first place because of their disgust. Most of these voters voted for Ron Paul in 2008 GOP Primaries, the few that didn’t were not registered Republicans, and thus incapable of doing so, in four years time Ron Paul has over doubled and in some cases tripled or even quadrupled his support. This growing number of American conservatives will make the Republicans winning back the Presidency harder than ever before, especially when voters realize they are choosing between the Republican and Democratic Obama, there is not an lot of difference between Romney and Obama when it comes to substance. The only way Republicans are going to win the general election is if they can get the Ron Paul supporters to actually vote Republican. Most run-of-the-mill Republicans will vote straight Republican in the general, there are a small minority of them who won’t vote for Ron Paul should he win the nominee, probably a fraction of a fraction of a percent. Should Mitt Romney win there is a huge percentage of Republicans, and more importantly Independents, who will not vote Republican should Romney win. The only way Romney could get Paul supporters to vote for him would be to pick Paul as his running mate, but Paul would never stoop to that. The only way to guarantee Obama is a one term president is to elect Ron Paul as the GOP Nominee, and despite what the liberal media would have to believe he does stand a strong chance, and you can help, Paul does not need to win every primary from here on out, he simply needs to have good showings. If you want to defeat Obama in November and your state hasn’t voted yet, make sure you show up on election night and vote for Ron Paul, also be sure to find out who the Ron Paul Delegates are in your district and make sure to vote for them too. This will require some research because the ballot will not say who is a Ron Paul, Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich supporter, it will simply say the delegate’s name. If worse comes to worse and you have no clue who they are when you go in to vote DO NOT GUESS! You would be better off not taking the chance of electing Romney delegates, and even though it may say that you can vote up to 4, that does NOT mean that you have to. ONLY vote for the delegates who you know for fact are pledged Ron Paul supporters. If conservatives do not unite together in the remaining primary elections they will surely be divided in November and that will guarantee another Obama victory.

So there’s a former Democrat running for the nomination so he can take on Sen. Bob Casey in November…so what? Unfortunately, this is not as uncommon as one might think. In fact, it would appear many of the Republicans in our state have been Democrats at one point in their life, and many still hold the liberal beliefs of the Democrat party, regardless of their GOP affiliation now.

What is surprising is the candidate leading this charge to ‘expose’ Smith. Why is it surprising that Steve Welch is behind this attack website? Because Steve Welch himself was a registered Democrat as recently as 2010, and had changed his registration five years earlier in 2005. In 2008, he voted for Barack Obama! (Source: Philadelphia Daily News) Don’t worry though, Welch has clearly stated that the only reason he changed parties was because he was tired of the Republicans not being fiscally conservative enough for him….so he became a Democrat? Does this make sense to anyone?

Another contender for the senatorial nomination, Marc Scaringi, hit the nail on the head in a previous debate when he quipped that, “apparently, I am one of the few Republicans running for the Republican nomination for the United States Senate.”

So, in order to make this race as transparent and fair as possible, I worked up this little graphic that clearly shows that liberal Steve Welch is no better than liberal Tom Smith. Do yourself a favor in two weeks and vote for Sam Rohrer or Marc Scaringi in the PA primary – they are the only sane choices for conservatives. Heck, they’re the only sane choice for run-of-the-mill Republicans!

The Results of the Truth are Liberating from The Conservative Declaration on Vimeo.

In this Tea Party speech, Griffin Voorhees of the Conservative Declaration, in association with the Sons of Liberty Radio Network, says it like it is regarding where our once great nation is headed. It is a frightening tale of failure and chaos, but Griffin spells out a clear blueprint out of the current economic mess that we are in after years of tax-and-spend, liberal progressive administrations, and representatives. Prepare to set your self free, and restore our Constitutional republic in 2012, but don’t forget that the truth is both liberating and offencive!

If you read the above linked article, you will see that I am not quoted, nor was my position that I gave the reporter explained. Since the unlisted author of the YDR opinion piece supports term limits for members of Congress, I imagine that my statements did not matter in the end, because they do not fit with the official YDR opinion on term limits. What follows is my entire opinion on term limits and why I will not take a pledge to impose term limits on members of Congress.

A member in the U.S. House of Representatives serves a two year term upon being elected. Members elected to the U.S. Senate serve a six year term. The current format, being dominated by a supported two party system, has several inherent problems. Once elected to the House, a member may have one year to concentrate on legislation. The following year is most likely spent campaigning for office. This is one flaw and goes against doing the work of the people that elected them.

Not only does the two party stranglehold on Washington D.C. already remove many choices from the voters already, incumbency holds another stranglehold on voter choice. The incumbent already has name recognition when it comes time for another election. Combining this with an enforced two party system does not allow for many different candidates to compete for the office. Before Congressman Platts decided not to run for re-election, there was one other candidate besides myself opposing him. Since his announcement, there are now ten candidates seeking the opening office. Whether the Republican candidates agreed with Congressman Platts’ opinions and voting record or not will never be known. They allowed him to continue running in the Republican Party for this office, election after election, for six terms. Both of these factors reduce voter choice.

Another reason why the voters’ choices are further limited are due to the two party stranglehold on American politics. In the 2010 election, all statewide minor party candidates were removed from the ballot due to political pressure. From reading that article, you see how the two party system forces minor party candidates from the ballot: by threatening the candidate with huge fines/costs to fight the nomination papers challenges. No minor party candidate in this state can compete with the money raised and spent by the Republicans and Democrats. No minor party candidates can therefore fight to stay in a race when they are challenged. How did the law get that way? Ask the Democrats and Republicans. They continuously make it impossible for anyone else to compete in elections. These tactics drastically reduce the amount of candidates that run for office, thus restricting the choice of the voters.

With incumbency, a two party stranglehold on Washington, and the power to make laws to keep other candidates off the ballot, it certainly seems like the Republicans and Democrats have cemented their foothold doesn’t it? Absolutely not! They continue to further restrict a voter’s choice in the election booth with other ways to keep those that are not the party’s chosen few from the ballot. Some candidates who choose to fight the establishment of the parties, will join those parties as their only perceived hope at getting elected. The primary election choices, coming this year on April 24th, has already been tampered with by the two major parties to further reduce your choice as a voter. The two major parties hold endorsement hearings several months before the primary. Unless you are part of the establishment, have played the game, bowed down to the party elite, and waited your turn in line, you will not receive the party endorsement. Once endorsed, the party’s machine begins to work on the endorsed candidate’s behalf by raising money, contributing money, contributing volunteers and building name recognition. When a non-endorsed candidate attempts to compete against the party endorsed candidate, the vast majority of the time, the non-endorsed candidate loses. This further restricts your voting choices and allows the party to pick the candidate that it wants…not necessarily the one you want as a voter. Combine this with consistent low voter turnout for primary elections , your choice in November has already been reduced so many times that you might as well not even attempt to run for office at all as a common citizen (one that is not part of the political scene already), let alone run as a minor party candidate. Is this how it should be?

As I have detailed above, your choice as a registered voter is already limited by the time you even go to the polls to vote. If you like your representative in office, and that representative continuously does a good job in your opinion, why further restrict your choice by imposing a legislated term limit on him/her? You as the voter are already supposed to have the ultimate term limit determination with your vote. If you do not like the politician in office, your vote for their opposition will end that politician’s term. With all of the detailed information above that removes your power as a voter already, I will not support term limit legislation or any pledges to that effect, as it will further restrict your power as a voter.

Finally, let us take a look at some of these term limit pieces of legislation. Congressman Platts, who graciously decided to not run for re-election, supported term limits for members of Congress. Since he supported term limits, he term limited himself. It is commendable to see a politician that follows through on what they believe.

What needs questioning however is the term limit numbers in various pledges and pieces of legislation. There are various levels of pension benefits available for members of the U.S. Congress. Most of the information that I have found, states that members are eligible to receive a basic pension after five years of service at the age of 62. The longer they serve, the earlier they can collect a pension. Either way, for the ability to receive one at all, a member has to serve only one term in the Senate, and at least three terms in the House. Every variation of term limit legislation that I have seen fully exceeds those basic requirements. In the vast majority of cases, getting elected to the U.S. House of Representatives is just the first step in a long career in politics. Does this make term limit pledges by candidates hypocritical or just uninformed? You decide…

I may have been too harsh in my criticism of Glenn Beck. I just learned that Mr. Beck has drawn his his line in the sand with the defiant phrase, “I will not comply!” His website says

As regulations, indoctrinations and more come closer and closer to his front door, he made one promise – I will not comply.

I want you to start saying those words to yourself. If you’re driving in the car right now all by yourself, I want you to say those words out loud. You need to start hearing yourself say those things: ‘I will not comply.’ You want to take away my right to have my kids work on my ranch, my farm? You want to tell my kids they can’t drive the tractor? I was driving a tractor when I was 10. I will not comply.- You want to tell me that my kid — so what? So they can go play soccer and get a trophy for losing? I will not comply. Learn to say those words, and say them with meaning.

I pray and have prayed for quite some time because the Lord has blessed me and cursed me with an ability to see over the horizon. If these things, these patterns, do not change, I pray that I have the strength to my dying breath to say ‘I will not comply.

The video is nine and a half minutes long, but you can view the important part by watching from the eight minute mark. I am very pleased that a national personality has taken such a defiant stand, and I don’t really care if Glenn gets all the credit. However someone else has a YouTube video making the “I will not comply” statement in September of 2001. That would be me. My video has already had over four hundred thousand views. I would be flattered to think that Glenn watched my video and took it to heart. And like Glenn, I ask you to start saying this phrase to yourself. Then start saying it out loud to your friends and family.

In fact, I encourage you to take it one step further. Let’s make this a movement that goes viral. I recommend that you make your own YouTube video telling the world that you will not comply. Please give a minute or two of your justification for your resistance, not just a five second quote. It is my policy not to post websites in comments to articles, however I will post any YouTube videos that meet the spirit of this intellectual revolution.

I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

Lighting the fires of Liberty, one heart at a time!

Michael Badnarik

I imagine that my older readers will recognize these lyrics from Paint Your Wagon, a movie released in 1969. For those “youngsters” who would like to see Clint Eastwood and Lee Marvin singing in their own voices, this is the movie for you. (Please don’t ask me who Clint Eastwood and Lee Marvin are. I don’t want to talk to you.)

Except for King Midas, nobody has as much gold as they’d like. It has been the symbol of royalty and the measure of weath since before recorded history. It is the first of three gifts carried to Bethlehem by the wise men, and the object of desire in almost every pirate movie, and the central theme of at least one James Bond film. Gold! The value of which appears to skyrocket as the value of our worthless, fiat currency continues to plummet as it is hyperinflated with the full complicity of Congress.

Tyrants have confiscated gold so often it is a cliche. Cortez destroyed the Aztecs for it, the Germans pryed tiny pieces of it out of their victim’s mouths in the concentration camps, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt pretended to make it illegal to own gold in 1933 with the passage of House Joint Resolution (HJR) 192. This website points out:

As a result of HJR 192, and from that day forward (June 5, 1933), no one in this nation has been able to lawfully pay a debt or lawfully own anything. The only thing one can do, is tender in transfer of debts, with the debt being perpetual. The suspension of the gold standard, and prohibition against paying debts, removed the substance for our common law to operate on, and created a void as far as the law is concerned. This substance was replaced with a “PUBLIC NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEM” where debt is “LEGAL TENDER” money.

As the world economy continues to crumble, and European nations openly declare bankruptcy, one tyranical government is continuing the sterotype by prohibiting public exchange of this most precious of metals. I, for one, am not the least bit suprised that “China clamps down on gold trading frenzy”.

Gold exchanges have mushroomed across China, from the northern port city of Tianjin to Guangxi bordering Vietnam, as spot prices in the precious metal have soared to record highs and speculation has boomed.

“No local authority, institution or individual is allowed to set up gold exchanges,” said the notice dated December 20 and jointly issued by the People’s Bank of China, the Ministry of Public Security and other regulators..

“Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.” Given our economic trajectory the farsighted person will ask themselves when the United States will insist that owning gold and/or silver is again illegal. In an attempt to make a game of this bleak inevitablity, I am starting a “confiscation pool” asking you to predict the day that precious metals are outlawed in this country. I am willing to award the winner ten ounces of silver if they pick the exact day, five ounces if they are within 7 days, and one ounce of silver within a month of the actual event.

You are only allowed to enter once, and you are not allowed to change your guess once you’ve “placed a bet”. I will accept guesses until April 30th. Keep in mind that my giving you the silver and your acceptance of it will probably be considered a felony if you win. IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT that you select a date prior to the April 30th deadline, the person closest to the actual date will win the ten ounces of silver.

Please format your comments in this mannerYEAR/MO/DA – FIRSTNAME LASTINITIAL
A sentence or two giving the reason for your prediction. SWAGs are perfectly acceptable.

Lighting the fires of Liberty, one heart at a time!

Last November I wrote that I had experienced a Colorad Rocky Mountain High when I toured the state with congressional candidate Tisha Casida. After my endorsement of her campaign (but certainly not because of it) Tisha appeared as a guest on Judge Napolitano’s television program. Tisha has been working very hard to campaign all across her district, which comprises nearly 40% of Colorado. She is actively fundraising to continue her sucess in spreading the passion for Liberty throughout Colorado. I would greatly appreciate it if you would read her request, and then give generously.

Thank you,

Michael

Dear Friends & Liberty-Lovers,

We have had an amazing start to 2012 – this is a great year for liberty. We have out-raised any “third-party” or “independent” candidate in the history of our district, and we are working on our next fundraising goal that will give us the war-chest we need to be able to reach even more voters in Colorado and concerned citizens across the country. I want to go to Washington, D.C. to be a voice for all Americans – specifically when it comes to protecting the individual liberties and natural rights that are the basis for who we are. A well-known voice for liberty will be leaving the Congress this year, and I want to be a re-enforcement for this message of truth and constitutional government.

Would you donate $25, $50, even $100 today to help us build our war-chest? We will have to make our media buys soon, and your donation goes directly towards marketing my platform and our goal for seeking State and local solutions to federal tyranny.

People like yourself have gotten us this far, and now we must push forward to continue our momentum and voice. We win when we work together, and I would be honored for your consideration and contribution.

In Liberty,

Tisha
Casida2012.com/

Just last week GOA sent out a newsletter to their Pennsylvania subscribers that in part said:

Dear Friend of the Second Amendment:

Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund is proud to endorse Pennsylvania’s Sam Rohrer for U.S. Senate.
In a time when politicians in Washington have abused and grossly exceeded their constitutional limits, voters are looking for fighters who are not afraid to rein in the federal government and place it back under the constraints of the U.S. Constitution.

State Representative Sam Rohrer is a long-time leader in the battle against federal intrusion, especially when it concerns the right to keep and bear arms.
Representative Rohrer stood up for gun owners and states’ rights with legislation to repeal the 2005 Real ID Act, a law that would have compromised the privacy of gun owners…

Gun Owners of America is a proud supporter of Sam Rohrer for Senate, and encourages all Pennsylvania gun owners and sportsmen to vote for Sam Rohrer in the April 24 Republican primary.

Please visit http://www.samrohrer.org/ to learn more about this race.

Sincerely,
Tim Macy
Vice-Chairman
Paid for by Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund. Not authorized by
any candidate or candidate™ committee. Gun Owners of America Political Victory
Fund is a project of Gun Owners of America.

This along with a recent endorsement by the former US Senate hopeful Peg Luksik who ran as a libertarian-leaning Republican against Pat Toomey in 2010 have helped Sam Rohrer maintain a steady lead in all of the recent polls. Just last night Sam picked up another big endorsement that very well may push him over the top in the actual election, the former 2012 Presidential Candidate Harman Cain sent out an e-mail to his supporters praising Rohrer and calling for them to, “take a look at [Rohrer’s] campaign and think about what you can do to boldly support it.”

Just before the news broke of the Herman Cain endorsement Adam and I were recording our weekly talk show where we commented on a news article from politicspa.com that claimed Sam had signed on to the former Peresidential candidates 9-9-9 tax plan that eliminated the current tax code and replaces it with a 9% personal sales tax, a 9% corporate tax, and a 9% federal sales tax. Now it makes sense when Herman Cain, an avid critic of Ron Paul, endorses a candidate who shares many of Paul’s beliefs.

On our show last night we were critical of Rohrer’s support for the 9-9-9 plan because we believe that it is a danger to freedom lovers across the country, giving the Federal Government an additional federal tax power. On its surface it sounds like a better policy than the current tax code, but regretfully there is no way anyone can guarantee that future administrations won’t raise the personal income taxes back to current levels and then screw us with twice the taxation. There is also no way to guarantee that future administrations won’t raise the 9-9-9 into a 12-12-12, or 15-15-15. In the words of former President Ronald Reagan, “government doesn’t tax to get the money it needs, government always needs the money it gets.” Believing with you that the power to tax is the power to destroy, giving the government the power to tax another aspect of our economy only gives them more power to destroy.

On our show last night Adam said he didn’t expect Sam to push very hard for the 9-9-9 plan and that he believed it would never pass. He also said he believed Rohrer primarily said he supported it to get the support of former Cain Supporters across the Commonwealth and to expand his base. After reading Rohrer’s comments on the 9-9-9 plan I am lead to believe that is exactly what he was doing and he has succeeded now that Cain has made an endorsement.

Sam had this to say, “I am grateful for Herman Cain’s support in this campaign and stand with him in his fight for tax reform,” he also added, “Federal and state governments have for too long remained locked into tax policies that are often antiquated, inefficient and ultimately destructive to the free-enterprise system and economic growth. I support the major components of the Cain plan such as lowering rates; reducing the credits and deductions and moving toward a flat tax.” But the comment Rohrer made that most eased my concerns was when he said, “I support the concepts of moving away from the payroll tax, particularly Medicare and shifting toward a consumption tax, and will aggressively work for them if elected to the US Senate.”

Although on principal I am opposed to a federal income tax, it is constitutional so long as it is apportioned, the only way I personally can support a federal sales (consumption) tax is if the income tax is eliminated. Based on what I am hearing from Rohrer, it sounds as though he wouldn’t actually support 9-9-9 as Herman Cain presented it, but rather as a phase out program to eliminate the income tax and the ruthless IRS.

Although I am not 100% behind his decision to publicly sign on to the 9-9-9 plan, it probably was a good political move, I just don’t particularly care for it. Sam’s recent enforcement by Cain, along with GOA, should give him a considerable boost in the polls that he was already leading and he shouldn’t have any trouble getting the endorsement of Michele Bachmann who endorsed his campaign for governor and credits Rohrer for inspiring her to run for Congress in the first place. This may very well be the push he needs to carry him the rest of the way through the primary and beat the establishment hand-picked, Steve Welch who is quite possibly the most dangerous candidate running.

This pick was largely influenced by the GOP’s hand-picked Governor Tom Corbett who said that Welch would bring a certain ‘geographic balance’ to the table along with an ‘incredible ability to build the party.’ Note that neither the Party nor the Governor made this selection based on the substance of his platform. If they did you should be very concerned, but I digress…

Not long before the endorsement process took place it was made public knowledge that in 2008 Steve Welch voted for Barack Obama in the general election against John McCain. Welch initially justified his vote by saying he couldn’t bring himself to vote for a moderate wishey-washey Republican like John McCain.

Recently, when asked on two separate occasions, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett said that Welch had switched parties to become a Democrat in 2008 only to vote for Obama in the primary election. He added, “My understanding, the explanation from him and from his campaign team is, in ‘Operation Chaos’ four years ago, I think it was Rush who was encouraging everybody, go switch your party and go and vote for Obama in order to beat Hillary…”

However there are three major problems with this claim, and that is that the truth gets in the way. First of all, Steve Welch has already said that he did vote for Obama in the general. Secondly, Welch didn’t register as a Democrat in 2008, he jumped ship in 2005, three years before Rush Limbaugh encouraged his listeners to switch parties to vote for Obama in the Democrat primary.

And the last inerrant fact is that Rush Limbaugh did not encourage his listeners to register as Democrats and vote for Obama in the primaries. Nor did Hannity, Levin or Savage as far as I know. This I know well because in 2008, I listened to Rush Limbaugh on a very regular basis. I’m not sure I missed a show on the EIB Network in the 2008 election cycle, in fact I was a Rush 24/7 subscriber at that time and I myself participated in “Operation Chaos.” Rush said that since there weren’t any conservative Republicans worth voting for and since McCain had already secured the election, that the Republican voters in the remaining states should register as a Democrat and vote for Hillary Clinton. He did this for several reasons. First, because Rush viewed Obama as far more extreme than Clinton in his left-wing policies. Another reason is that Obama was ahead in the polls and with this extra push it could help the lesser of two evils (Clinton) over the top.

Now the goal was not so much to help Clinton win, but to do exactly what the name of the mission claimed, it was to cause chaos by giving Clinton enough support to stay in the election longer and make the political mudslinging thicker, tearing both candidates down so when one of them won they would have a lot of baggage to answer for. Obviously, it didn’t work to the extent Limbaugh had hoped, but the shortcomings of Operation Chaos is not the intent of this article. It is to highlight the lie that Corbett, Welch and the PA GOP are spewing.

Welch became a Democrat in 2005 because something appealed to him about the party, and in 2008 he voted for Obama and it had nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh or Operation Chaos. They are dishonest people and there is something you can always trust dishonest people to be and that is to be dishonest. Welch is a double-minded man, unstable in all of his ways. I only hope you will not take the advice of the corrupt Pennsylvania Republican Party under the leadership of Rob Gleason, and vote with your conscious for one of the few (two to be exact) true Conservatives running.

When American soldiers were killed in Afghanistan as retaliation for an accidental Quran burning, Rush Limbaugh asked last week:

“It’s gotten to the point: Why are we there? If this is the end result of us being there, let’s get these people out, bring them home and the hell with the place over there…”

Now, is Limbaugh suggesting America adopt an “isolationist” foreign policy? Is he saying we should “cut and run” in Afghanistan? No, Rush is reasonably asking why we’re still there. Two years ago Limbaugh said:

“The thing that bothers me about this is that we’re there, whether we should have done or what we’ve done here or for is now irrelevant. There’s only one thing to do: win. You know, ‘What about Afghanistan?’ Easy. We win, they lose.”

Today, Rush and few Americans obviously don’t see any “easy” victories in Afghanistan. Today, Limbaugh and most Americans obviously don’t think asking “Why are we there?” is irrelevant.

I first became a conservative listening to Rush Limbaugh as a teenager. In the two decades since, I’ve come to learn that foreign policy is the one issue where most conservatives tend to be the least conservative.

Conservative behavior on foreign policy is similar to liberal behavior on domestic policy. If liberals never concede that welfare spending has made the problem of poverty worse, conservatives never concede that our constant intervention overseas might be making the problem of terrorism worse. Liberals always say we will finally end poverty if we would just spend more money. Conservatives always say we will finally end terrorism if we would just fight more wars. The fact that none of this ever happens doesn’t seem to phase either camp.

Conservatives who now ask what reason we have for staying in Afghanistan are absolutely correct to ask the question, the problem is their timing. Many on the Left and Right have been asking why America is still in Afghanistan long before we reached the decade mark. Many have asked what “victory” America hoped to achieve. Many have long wondered whether there was real “victory” we ever could achieve.

Asking questions of one’s government used to be a primary function of conservatives, but on foreign policy, conservatives have more often decided to demonize anyone who dares question our government.

Conservatives are finally questioning Afghanistan because it has become painfully obvious that we’re stuck in a quagmire. But wasn’t this always the case? If we had entertained more questions about the wisdom of nation-building, the limits of democracy in the Middle East, the impossible task we were asking of our soldiers—could we have avoided our current dilemma? Cost benefit analyses are inherently conservative. Spending lives and dollars for no good reason is not.

Rush Limbaugh is absolutely right: “Why are we there? If this is the end result of us being there, let’s get these people out, bring them home and the hell with the place over there…”

Saying “to hell with that place” is not “isolationism.” It’s rational. Saying “bring them home” is not “cutting and running,” it’s salvaging and saving.

If we’re going to put our best and bravest in harm’s way, Americans should always make sure it’s for a damn good reason. There’s nothing patriotic about carelessly sending our troops around the globe for just any old reason—and there’s certainly nothing conservative about it.

Choosing presidential candidates is sort of like dating. When you first meet someone they can seem wildly attractive, but the more you get to know them the more you start to find things you don’t like.

No self-respecting conservative is attracted to Mitt Romney. In the search for an anti-Romney, Republican voters once thought Newt Gingrich was hot, until they learned the very things they didn’t like about Romney—government run healthcare, TARP—were also supported by Gingrich. Similarly, some Republicans seem to think Rick Santorum has it going on, but the more his glaring big government record is brought up—No Child Left Behind, Medicare Plan D—the more the Senator loses his sizzle.

There has been much criticism of Republicans throughout this election for jumping from candidate to candidate and not being able to make up their minds. But Republicans actually deserve praise for this. If in past elections GOP voters were willing to settle more quickly for horrible candidates, today’s confusion stems from a GOP that refuses to settle. In rejecting Romney, conservative Republicans simply see nowhere to go—so they’ve gone everywhere.

The Tea Party is no doubt responsible for creating the current more consciously conservative Republican Party, and the movement was founded on one simple unifying principle: Stop Spending. No single leader or individual group controls the Tea Party but most Tea Partiers would agree that balancing the budget and reducing the debt is their top priority. The question today is, ‘For which presidential candidate is this a top priority?’

A recent study indicates there is only one. After examining each candidate’s economic proposals, last week the independent Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget reported that Newt Gingrich’s plan would add $7 trillion to the national debt, Santorum’s would add $4.5 trillion and Romney’s would add $250 billion.

But Ron Paul would actually cut our debt to the tune of $2.2 trillion.

But many conservative Republicans say they aren’t necessarily comfortable with Paul on every issue. This doesn’t change the fact that Paul is the only one who’s right on what has always been the Tea Party’s primary issue. It doesn’t change the fact that Romney, Santorum and Gingrich all fail miserably on what has always been the Tea Party’s primary issue.

The entire purpose of our Constitution was to limit the federal government, including its power to spend recklessly. Paul’s purist constitutional approach is nothing less than hitting the reset button on the republic of the Founders. As the Daily Caller’s Max Borders has observed:

One of the cleverest things Justin Timberlake ever did was bring sexy back. After all, sexy never really went away. But once the song came out, it didn’t matter. People welcomed sexy back with open arms. Now there’s nothing particularly sexy about the Ron Paul campaign. But just as Justin Timberlake brought sexy back, Ron Paul is bringing the Constitution back even though it never went away…

Dating can be annoying and difficult. Even when you find the right partner there will still be things you don’t like about them. The same is true of political candidates. No one will ever be perfect.

But voters should reasonably be able to expect that their candidate will be with them on the issues that matter most. A majority of conservative Republicans now agree that addressing our crushing debt is what matters most.

Republicans will likely continue to fall in and out of love with all of the candidates in this election. But when it comes to real fiscal conservatism, Ron Paul remains the sexiest candidate in this race.

The problem with Rick Santorum is not that he doesn’t stand for faith, life and traditional marriage. The problem is he thinks he can get a nation of 300 million people to stand with him. On the issue of gay marriage, Santorum recently told CNN: “I’ve just said I think this is a national issue, we can’t have 50 different marriage laws, and we have to have a consistency in what marriage is, and family is something. And we need to have a national discussion about it and develop a national policy.”

But we already do have 50 different marriage laws, concerning what age you can get married, what defines common law marriage, and so on. Unless Santorum can find where in the Constitution the federal government is delegated the authority to regulate marriage, his proposal is unconstitutional.

It is also impractical. As the Founders intended and the 10th amendment makes clear, marriage is a state issue. Before Roe vs. Wade, so was abortion. Before the 1960’s, so was school prayer. Any powers not delegated to the federal government by the states are reserved to the states and the people. This is called federalism and it was the basis for our original form of government.

A return to a truly federal system, in which some states have gay marriage and some don’t; some states ban abortion and others don’t; and even where some states openly allow public prayer and religious expression that other states don’t—this constitutional approach is one that could potentially yield victories for social conservatives.

If it was the federal government that took these cultural decisions away from the states, Santorum now looks to the federal government to restore social conservatism. Santorum seeks a national consensus on issues like gay marriage and abortion that simply do not exist and likely never will.

The best thing about Rick Santorum is that unlike many of the Republican presidential candidates, he actually stands for something. The problem is he is typically the worst enemy of what he is supposed to stand for.

Santorum’s argument is this—that he eventually will convince liberal states like Vermont and Massachusetts to agree with him on social issues. Well, good luck, Rick. The more sensible approach is the constitutional argument, which is this—that the states will never agree on these divisive issues and each state should be allowed to go its own way culturally.

It might be politically impossible to ban abortion nationwide, but it could be possible to save unborn children in Alabama. It might be unrealistic to ban gay marriage in every state, but it is possible to prevent the federal government from forcing gay marriage on every state. The same powers Santorum wants to give the federal government to implement legislation he favors, could easily be turned around on social conservatives depending on who controls Washington, DC. In fact, the federal government has been an enemy to social conservatives for the last half century, whether Republicans have been in power or not.

Social conservatism can win where there still exists a socially conservative consensus in this country. Santorum sees the culture wars as an all-or-nothing battle, where America will either be returned to 1950 or social conservatives will never win anything at all.

If social conservatives want to take their country back, they can. But they must first stop following Rick Santorum.

When Pat Buchanan was fired from MSNBC last week over controversial racial remarks in his latest book, MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in a statement that Buchanan’s views “aren’t really appropriate for national dialogue, much less the dialogue on MSNBC…”

This is not the first time MSNBC has publicly determined what constitutes appropriate dialogue for the nation and their station.

In July, MSNBC fired their afternoon host Cenk Uyger. According to Uyger, there were some complaints about his harsh criticism of Obama. Uyger said Griffin told him personally “We are insiders. We are part of the establishment. Washington is concerned with your tone…” Uygur replied: “I thought: ‘Are we in a movie? Is this for real?” he said.

Uyger’s replacement was the Reverend Al Sharpton, who it was reported had promised in his pre-interview with MSNBC that he would not criticize President Obama. Unlike Buchanan, Sharpton’s controversial racial remarks were apparently more MSNBC-friendly. Commenting on Buchanan’s firing, The American Spectator’s James Antle writes:

Remaining on the network is Al Sharpton, whose denunciations of “white interlopers” and “diamond merchants” helped provoke violence against Freddy’s Fashion Mart and the Jewish communities of Crown Heights. You will search Buchanan’s oeuvre in vain for anything approaching Sharpton at his most hateful.

So there you have it. Uyger’s harsh criticism of Obama is out, but Sharpton’s ass kissing is in. Buchanan’s racial insensitivity is beyond the pale, but Sharpton’s straight up race hatred is above the fray.

That Buchanan made controversial comments about race in his new book is true. How do we know this? Because his comments created controversy. But Buchanan’s book is also a New York Times bestseller. Whatever one thinks of these comments, they are already part of the national dialogue whether MSNBC likes it or not.

And this remains true whether Media Matters or Color of Change like it or not. The idea of private news outlets determining what views or opinions are acceptable or unacceptable is fine. That’s how free markets work. The idea of activist groups championing or denouncing certain views is fine. That’s how freedom works.

But the idea that news outlets should work loosely with the Washington establishment to enforce political orthodoxy is not fine. In fact, it raises serious questions about journalistic ethics. It also raises serious questions about how free our speech really is.

The idea that pressure groups like Media Matters or Color of Change can work in conjunction with the media establishment to define permissible dissent isn’t fine either.

When a pundit of Buchanan’s stature says things others don’t think should be said—this is precisely when journalists should value the principle of free speech the most. Many journalists have denounced Buchanan’s firing for precisely this reason. When Uyger was saying things that made the establishment uncomfortable—he was performing journalists’ primary function. And yet, he was punished for it.

If anyone thinks Buchanan is truly a racist then let him sink himself with his own words, not warnings from Media Matters or Color of Change. Who in the hell do these people think they are anyway? Buchanan fully realizes his firing is about far more than him, or as he told The Daily Caller: “What concerns me more than what happens to me (is that) you can really damage and cripple careers of young people who are really not well known… I’m much more concerned in the future about this idea of smearing and then stigmatizing and silencing and censoring and blacklisting people because of their opinions, because of their views…”

Those with the courage of their convictions do not find it necessary to bully others with opposing views. Media Matters’ ultimate goal seems to be to create a media that doesn’t matter and the Color of Change is apparently yellow.

Firing Pat Buchanan didn’t take journalistic courage, but revealed cowardice. And America is better than this even if MSNBC is not.

Senator Jim DeMint gave one of the most rousing speeches at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, warning Republicans that there can be no compromise with the Democrats. As usual, Sen. DeMint is right. Republicans cannot afford to compromise, quite literally, with any party or anyone who honestly believes that our government can spend one more cent or borrow one more dollar for one more minute.

But this also goes for Republicans.

We’ve heard a lot this week about the “Santorum surge” as the former Pennsylvania Senator rises in the polls to become the latest Republican to pose a serious challenge to Mitt Romney. Romney’s big government offenses are numerous and well known, which is why conservatives remain reluctant to support him. But Santorum’s big government offenses are just as numerous and equally as offensive. Writes The Washington Examiner’s Timothy P. Carney:

As a member of Senate leadership, Santorum literally was an agent of the GOP establishment during passage of No Child Left Behind, the expansion of Medicare, and the overspending of the Bush era.

Red State’s Erick Erickson is even more explicit:

Rick Santorum is a pro-life statist. He is. You will have to deal with it. He is a big government conservative. Santorum is right on social issues, but has never let his love of social issues stand in the way of the creeping expansion of the welfare state. In fact, he has been complicit in the expansion of the welfare state.

The unavoidable dilemma concerning both Romney and Santorum is that neither man has ever been conservative in the same way that Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan defined that term—believing that government isn’t the solution to our problems, but the problem. Reagan believed that conservatism proper was like a three-legged stool, consisting of social, national security and economic/libertarian conservatives. Both Romney and Santorum have never had much use for the fiscally responsible leg of that stool. Both candidates reveal this plainly in their attacks on each other—whether Santorum’s insistence that Romney is a TARP-supporting liberal who gave the Democrats the blueprint for ObamaCare, or Romney’s insistence that Santorum represents, as Carney put it, “an agent of the GOP establishment during… the overspending of the Bush era.”

Unfortunately for the GOP, both candidates are absolutely right in their indictments of each other. Romney and Santorum are essentially George W. Bush Republicans competing in a Tea Party-tinged election where conservatives do not necessarily want to go back to the big spending Bush era. Bush’s GOP was completely void of the economic/libertarian philosophy Reagan believed essential in promoting an effective conservatism, and the absence of any tangible limited government philosophy is what allowed Bush Republicans to rack up debt even worse than Bill Clinton Democrats. Said Sen. DeMint of the Bush era: “You could accuse Republicans of a lot of things, but you could never convict us of being too conservative!”

Sen. DeMint wants Reagan’s three-legged stool restored, advising the GOP that “The debate in the Republican Party needs to be between libertarians and conservatives… There’s no longer room for moderates and liberals because we don’t have any money to spend, so I don’t want to be debating with anyone who wants to grow government.”

Some Republicans now look to Romney, though most of his career he has grown government. Some Republicans now look to Santorum, though most of his career he has grown government. When President Obama promises to cut spending in every State of the Union address he’s delivered, conservatives instinctively know he’s lying. Why? Because Obama’s actual record of cutting spending is non-existent. The same is true of Romney and Santorum. To the extent that Republicans realize this, they’ve been reluctant to support either candidate. To the extent that Republicans have been willing to ignore it, they compromise conservative principles in the very way Sen. DeMint has warned them not to.

If DeMint wants the conversation in the GOP to be between libertarians and conservatives, Santorum says: “I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.” This is true. Santorum has fought against small government conservatism his entire career.

Sen. DeMint is right that Republicans can no longer afford to compromise with the Democrats. The remaining question is: Can conservatives afford to compromise with Republicans who grow government and spend money just like liberal Democrats?

1) ‘He’s tough on terrorism and…’

2) ‘He doesn’t, and hasn’t ever supported socialism…’

Before I address their claims, lets look at the definition of the word socialism. Dictionary.com defines Socialism as “a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.” Now allow me to sum that up for you, it is an economic system or policy that eliminates private ownership of cash flow, goods and services, and forcibly transfers the rights to a collective body.

ObamaCare is often referred to as socialism because it is socialist in its nature. The premise is to take property or income from some and redistribute it to others in form of a service – in this case the service is that of healthcare. But socialism is not limited to healthcare services, it can be any sort of good or service that was handed out to a recipient that did not pay for it.

Now very briefly speaking here, illegal immigrants who hop the border and take advantage of American social programs such as public education, health care, social security, etc. are recipients of socialism. The outcry from political right is that these illegals did not pay a dime into the system that they are milking dry. Rick Santorum has said on many occasions that we need to defend Israel, in fact, on his issues page under the ’10 Steps to Promote Our Interests Around the World’ page, Rick Santorum says “we must stand by Israel, especially at a time when it appears increasingly to be standing alone. The recent dislocation of the old order in the Middle East will usher in a new one, and anti-Israeli elements are working overtime to take advantage of the opportunity.” And under the issue of “Response To Iran” it says that Rick Santorum was the “author of the Syria Accountability Act to combat the threat Syria posed to Israel…”

At no point on any of these pages does Rick Santorum say that he wants to tax Israel for these services, instead he wants to borrow, print and tax us to pay for their defense. How far would a Republican candidate get if he said he wanted to borrow, print and tax us to pay for healthcare for Mexican citizens in the form of illegal immigrants? Even if they sold it to the Republican voters under the geyser of keeping Mexico safe, no Republican with half a brain would support them. Rick Santorum is doing this very thing and the GOP voters are eating it right up. He is trying to further make Israel dependents of the US taxpayers which is, by definition, a form of socialism. He gets away with it because of the threat of the bomb. He claims that intelligence sources say that Iran is building a nuke. The same intelligence sources that told us Iraq was building a nuke (weapons of mass destruction), now thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars later we have still yet to find any traces of nuclear weapons there.

But for those of you who are Isreali protectionists who still aren’t sold on why Santorum is a socialist, let’s take into consideration that in 2008 Santorum campaigned for a socialist. He said, “if you’re a conservative, if you’re a Republican, there is only one place to go, and that’s Mitt Romney.” So if Santorum tells Republicans they should look to the grandfather of ObamaCare as a conservative leader, it kind of makes you wonder what he means when he calls himself a conservative.

Rather than listening to political rhetoRick, lets look at his record as a Senator…
In 2003, Santorum voted in favor of Medicare Part D which was the largest expansion of entitlement programs since LBJ’s “Great Society” that was modeled after FDR’s “New Deal.” And what do the Medicare Part D, the New Deal and the Great Society have in common? One major thing…socialism! LBJ was the president responsible for passing Medicare in the first place. The premise of it was to guarantee that Americans ages 65 and older and younger people with disabilities would have access to health insurance. Takeaway the stipulation of age or disability and Medicare is just as socialist and unconstitutional as ObamaCare – and Santorum voted to expand it. He voted to expand, or spread socialism further than it already was across the United States! A Senator, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a socialist, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. And for this reason I can not muster any ounce of support for the man regardless if he wins the Republican nomination or not.

Lastly you may have noticed that when you’re on a website reading an article there are typically advertisements on the website that relate to the topic your reading about. For instance, there is an article on this very site entitled “Don’t Tread on Me”, and you can bet that almost every time you click this link you can find ‘ad choices’ for websites that sell Gadsen flags and apparel. These links are typically strategically placed there to rope people in who are interested in specific topics and trying to get them to buy products that relate to said topics. Is it any coincidence that when on dictionary.com searching the word socialism today that two advertisements popped up on the left and right hand sides of the screen and that they were both links to socialist campaigns? Below is a screen shot of the dictionary.com definition of socialism and the ‘ad choices’ links… enjoy!

Emotions are the drivers of all kinds of evil on both sides of the isle, the issue of same sex marriage can be solved wile keeping all parties happy and without sacrificeing liberty. The only stipulation is we need to put liberty before equality. In the words of Milton Friedman, “Those who are willing to put equality before freedom will have neither, those who put liberty before equality will find wind up with a great deal of both.”

Back in the 60′s there was a very similar political battle taking place between liberty and equality, the premise was the same only it wasn’t over gay marriage but so called, ‘civil rights’. In many ways the issue defined the 1964 presidential election, President Johnson supported and later passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a bill that essentually made it a crime for anyone in the government and in private business to discriminate against a person of color. Barry Goldwater was a very vocal opponent of this legislation, not on the grounds that he favored discrimination, or was against equality, in fact Goldwater was in favor of telling the government that they could not discriminate. After all the government has but one role, to protect your rights, and there fore they can not discriminate against people who poses the same rights on public property. But Goldwater was opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he was fundamentally against the notion that the government could interfear with the affairs of a private business, which would be a violation of the owners property rights.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 essentually eliminated all property rights of business men and women. Based on the implications of this law, it is illegal for private businesses to, “discriminate” or freely choose who they will or will not serve. Following that same government logic, the church has no right, (even though a private orginization) to, “discriminate” or choose criteria that its subjects must live up to. Similarly to how a resteraunt owner can’t turn away a consumer on the grounds of their color, nor can the church cant turn away people who don’t meet the qualifications to enter into a Holy and private contract that they established.

A society that truly recognises and respects liberty and justice holds a private business mans property rights as highly as they hold a homeowners private property rights. Any red blooded American would be outraged if the government told them who they could allow or disallow onto their property with out their permission. Which is why we should all be upset reguardless of skin color or sexual preference when we see the government telling the church who can and can’t get married. It is not the role of government to permit anyone reguardless of sexual preferance or color to get married, anymore then they have the right to permit a stranger into your houce for your childs birthday party.

“When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.”
-Martin Niemöller

Shortly my romanticizing of my daughters plight was soon to be dashed by the concept only a child born in a post modern, media driven culture could conjure up. She was afraid; being there for eternity that she would get…bored.

Yes this is what heaven has become to the modern man. What once was a place of eternal refuge from the pains of earthly existence has become a territory of tedium where it will be difficult to be perpetually entertained. That’s right my fellow Christian parents, apparently heaven has lost its appeal once the kids found out there was no texting there.

Of course it hasn’t helped things that heaven is normally depicted as a place where we all get wings and harps and play dirges to the Lord who one would think with all His omnipotent power would have provided more instruments at our disposal than an archaic one we don’t even play on earth.

Wings were another element that seemed a little unnecessary in heaven. Do we even breathe air in heaven, and if we want to get around do we really need to rely on the law of lift to get us there?

There is also this unsettling idea that we no longer belong to our earthly family but in fact have all become one in an eternal commune of togetherness. Suddenly Moses, Paul, AND Benny Hinn are my brothers?

Sounds like a bad Thanksgiving with the relatives your not good enough for, and the crazy uncle you have to invite every year but you pray he stays out of the cooking sherry!

I didn’t really have a good answer for my daughter as to how time would be spent in heaven, but I took some solace in the fact that she is contemplating the incomprehensible and wondering about eternity.

If more Christians would begin the hard journey of nurturing their intellect, and facing the hard problems of faith without fear that some answers are difficult to grasp, perhaps more secular humanist would give us a listen.
There is nothing more harmful to our faith than the Christian who says all they need is faith and the idea that our intellectual exploration is not of God. Gee, wonder why more and more “smart” people find God less and less compelling?

The Bible says if we don’t study, and meditate, and be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks, we should be ashamed of ourselves. I for one am grateful to my daughter for reminding me that she is made in Gods image, the hard things of God are worth exploring, and that my faith is strengthened by my rational and logical pursuits of Gods Truth!

Still not crazy about harp music though.