Tag Archives: socialism

President Uses State of the Union To Talk Out Of Both Sides of His Mouth

Bookmark and Share     On an occasion such as the State of The Union, there exists a certain suspense that electrifies the air for those who appreciate and understand the power of the presidency. It stems from knowing that a true leader and the ability of powerful articulation can turn things around with the utterance of a just a few words. If a President ever needed to draw on such leadership and powerful articulation, Barack Obama did.

After being undeniably thumped by an electorate unhappy with his priorities and failings, President Obama needed to set a new tone, distract us away from the old one and try to create a new positive, hopeful, agenda. To a degree, a significant portion of the population will fall for the rhetorical pros that the President offered and believe that he really did learn a lesson and drop his aggressive socialist agenda.  But in the coming months, it looks like the President’s deeds will betray his words.

President Obama’s address was carefully targeted.  For instance, in many ways, the President tried to appeal to his most vocal critics regarding an issue that many are quite critical of Democrats overr………………taxes.   Despite claims that Bush tax cuts need to expire because they hurt, President Obama took great credit for offering a Christmas tree of tax cuts. He even touted the merits of trickle-down economics when he stated that his tax cuts “gave Americans more buying power”. What President Obama failed to mention was that his seemingly long list of supposed tax cuts in the past and the ones he is proposing in the future are so meager that their benefits are hardly felt.

President Obama’s newfound faith in tax cuts was merely one of many 180 degree turns that his rhetoric took from the reality of his policies.

He spoke of bi-partisanship.

On this he may have learned lesson, because his words about his future conduct, sharply contrasted his past actions. He promised monthly meetings with the Republican leadership. He endorsed a bipartisan fiscal commission and he even appealed to Republicans and urged them to be bipartisan. Yet, this is the same man who refused to allow Republicans to sit down at the table with him and Democrat leaders as they tried to hammer out their version of healthcare reform. Where was President Obama’s yearning for bipartisanship then?

What a difference an election makes.

The election of Republican Scott Brown destroys the unbridled control of liberals and now, when the President will need to deal with Republicans, he wants bipartisanship. He should get it but he should also practice it as he preaches it.

Our Commander-In-Chief once again spoke of transparency.  He demanded that earmarks be posted on a website so that all can see them before they get voted on. I support the concept, so long as it does not call for an entire new federal department to run and as long as it does not distort the numbers as was the case with Recovery.gov, which was suppose to show where all the stimulus money was going and what is was producing.  That site created fictitious congressional districts and fake jobs.  But what about this push for transparency? Was it practiced by the President when he refused to allow C-Span into his meetings with Democrats involving healthcare reform? 

And what about earmarks?

They did not bother the President in any of the 124 bills that he signed into law during his first year in office.  I failed to hear him protest the hundreds of millions earmarked for Arkansas’  Blanche Lincloln, Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu or North Dakota’s Ben Nelson when they were given earmarks in return for their support of healthcare reform.

President Obama also seemingly reversed his position on energy too.

Suddenly he endorses the construction of nuclear power facilities and the drilling of domestic oil. He opposed such measures in the past,  so what accounts for the sudden reversal? The truth is, it is not a reversal at all. As with all that the President said he wants to forge ahead with, subtle caveats were offered, In this case, he would move on nuclear and domestic oil energy independence but only if  his Cap-and Trade scheme is passed in Senate. Hence the new use of the both climateand energy together in one bill.  The White House intends to link support of his Cap-and-Trade environmental scheme to energy and stand in the way of one without the other.  Is that compromise?  What the President failed to mention was that Cap-and-Trade would amount to the greatest transfer of wealth in history and tax everything from the air we breathe to the flatulence of each farm animal that a farmer owns.

Indeed President Obama sounded hopeful and at times he even sounded conservative. But the truth is that the Obama soundtrack is as about as out of sync sync with his actual goals as a poorly made karate flick or Japanese monster movie dubbed over in English.

In general the President’s first State of the Union had a rightfully optimistic tone. He is right when he stated ” I have never been more hopeful about America than I am tonight because of our strength” .   The phrase was remiscent of First Lady Michelle Obama’s claim to have never been more proud of America than she was when he husband was winnin g Democrat presidential primaries. 

But in this case the President was right to be hopeful because of our strength but what he does not yet understand is that that strength comes from the American people, not their government.

In the Republican response to the President , Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell effectively pointed this out when spoke of the need for a proper limited government at every level and reminded us that top down leadership is not working and that the government closest to the people is the best government.

Governor McDonnell reminded us that Cap-and-Trade does not create jobs and lower taxes. Yet while the President spent much time talking about job creation and a prosperous people, his liberal Cap-and-Trade proposals would hurt job growth and make energy more unaffordable.

In short, the President used the State of the Union to restore a badly damaged image and establish some sense of confidence as he moves ahead. But his words contradicted his actions and his policy initiatives contradicted his Party’s direction. In the end, his State of the Union address actually created more questions than it answered and sparked more doubt than confidence. So I suspect that as next 10 months leading up to the midterm elections unfolds, despite his stated dislike for what he called “the perpetual campaign”, President Obama will be campaigning quite hard to save his party’s losses and as such he will continue to talk out of both sides of his mouth.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

“HOPE Is Fading Fast” Takes On New Meaning For President Obama

Bookmark and Share    I wish I could take credit for this little gem but it comes to POLITICS 24/7  from our great conservative compatriots at PatriotRoom.com.   

But more than that, I wish I were the creative individual that came up with the snappy play on words and use of imagery that makes the product that Patriot Room brought to our attention a must have for anyone concerned with the direction our country is being taken in.

 RedWhiteBlue.gif picture by kempite

From Patriot Room:

T-shirt of the day: Hope is Fading Fast

by: Bill Dupray   posted: 2009-11-24 11:13:00

For the record, we are not affiliated with the company selling the shirts. But we certainly wish we were, because they are gonna sell a pile of these.

RedWhiteBlue.gif picture by kempite

I think this is just great!

But I will tell you now, a look behind the maker and distributor of this shirt, “The Propagandist” and “Freshjive”, tells me that I won’t be parting with any of my money for their profit.

The two outfits seem to be a little out there in their perceptions.  For them “Hope Is Fading Fast” because they see President Obama as being just like President Bush, and for them, hope is fading fast” because the liberal messiah is not as liberal as they “hoped” for.  

So……. sorry, but my dough goes for that which is made in America (whatever is still made in America) and to those who are not trying to promote anarchy or socialism.

Los Angeles street artist Shepard Fairey poses in January for a picture with his "Hope" artwork used to promote the Obama campaign.But in this great capitalist, democracy of ours,  perhaps a knockoff is in the works? I am pretty sure that President Obama has not yet patented the word he used to describe himself and his ascendency to the presidency, “Hope”.  I am also sure that “Freshjive” and “The Propagandist” have not patented or gotten their own copywrite on the already, Associated Press copywritten  image that artist  Shepherd Fairey stole inorder to paint his iconic emblem of the presidential campaign, in the first place.     I see no reason why others can’t make similar, shirts, keyword “similar”.

 If I could only find all of my old silk screening accessories, I’d be on it like on white on rice. 

Now if Mike Steele could start worrying more about fundraising for the RNC than the credit he wants and the press he is seeking, he’d be having “similar” shirts made up and sold to bring in some additional profits for next year’s midterm elections  (see story here).

But since Mike Steele is  busy firing RNC staffers because he feels they haven’t done enough to get him the press that gives him all the credit for the recent Republican successes in the ’09 election cycle, I wont be counting on that.  So I am looking into my own version of “Hope Is Fading Fast”.  Perhaps one that has the POLITICS 24/7 logo on the back.   If I can work that one out, as a Republican, with whatever profit there is, I will donate half to the 2010 campaigns of the most deserving candidates and as a proud pro-capitalist American , keep the other half for myself.

Anyone want to make it a joint venture?  All conservative backers can contact  me, Kempite, at LiberalsRlosers@aol.com.  Let’s make a deal!

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Ayotollah Obama’s Lies and Mischaracterizations of Protestors Fan the Flames of Anger

Bookmark and Share  Americans are becoming angry  as they are being led astray and marched into very dangerous territory by the R.O.P.E. bunch.

R.O.P.E.Who are the R.O.P.E. bunch?

They are the Reid-Obama-Pelosi-Enablers.

They are the liberal establishment and their supporters who are enabling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to lie to the American people and to deny the extent of disapproval that the American people are demonstrating as it relates to their policy direction.

All across the nation, Americans are getting increasingly angry at what they are seeing.

They have seen a pattern of producing voluminous legislative packages that no one knows what is exactly contained in them and then suddenly commence voting to pass those legislative initiatives before being given a proper hearing.

They have seen Congress quickly pass a Cap-and-Trade bill that amounted to a tax on the air we breathe and that will be the greatest transfer of wealth the nation has ever known.

Now the American people are witnessing the R.O.P.E. bunch rush through an over one thousand page bill to reform the nature of healthcare in our nation and have the federal government assume control of a sector of the economy that accounts for more than 17% of the gross domestic product.

President Obama took more than six months to choose the right dog for his family yet he gave Congress half that time to propose and pass legislation that would determine the quality, affordability and availability of healthcare in America. If you are like me, you might think that people’s health is an issue that is worthy of much more time, attention, consideration and sincere debate than the issue of which hypoallergenic dog is best suited to run around the White House.

So yes! Many Americans are mad!

Admittedly not all Americans are already fed up with President Obama and the liberal leadership of Congress and their tactics. Some are just ignorant and they comfortably enjoy membership in the R.O.P.E. bunch. They are content to enable the administration’s statist and collectivist mindset and they have no concern over the total disregard they show for the intentions of the founding principles of our hopefully still great nation.

Many Americans, even those who did accept Barack Obama’s claim to offer “change we can believe in”, are troubled by the rush to federal control and socialism that his policies are bringing to America. Many more were even brought to tears when they saw the White House take a totalitarian approach to dissenting opinions and asked Americans to report any views that opposed the President’s health control policies to them at flag@whitehouse.gov.

For a vast number of people this was eerily reminiscent of the communist practice of policing information and only allowing that which was vetted by the state to be disseminated to the public.

But this mentality goes beyond just the McCarthy like request to report to the White House dissenting opinions that they indiscriminately define as fishy. The President, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Democrats all over have taken a page out the ruling regime in Iran and labeled those who oppose them as fringe groups, mobs, radicals, dangerous and Republican operatives. In Iran when protestors recently demonstrated against shady election results the Ayatollah depicted the same things of them. That is of course with the exception of claiming that those dissenters were backed by Republicans. Instead the Ayatollah said that those rebel rousers were backed by the American devil.

Through the Democrat National Committee, Ayatollah Obama and the R.O.P.E. bunch even produced an ad depicting those who oppose the administration as violent mobs.

This has been the case with any voices of dissent that the left encounters. For months the liberal leadership of the United States has used these words to describe American who participate in the Tea party protests that take place all across America. They claim that they are all Republican backed operatives, racists and radical fringe groups.

The truth is that there are many Republicans involved. There are even some Republican affiliated organizations devoting time to opposing the direction the nation is going in. However, the G.O.P. as an organization is in disarray. Nationally the party does not have any effective organization mechanism in place. If it had, a few months ago, they would have performed much better in the November elections than they actually did. The Republican Party is not yet capable of mobilizing the vast numbers of people showing up at town hall meetings and organizing Tea Party protests in every state in the nation. I wish they did have the ability and I look forward to when they do, but in the mean time, we are not there yet.

The federal government fails to acknowledge that reality and they fail to admit the truth about these protesters. Instead they simply try to write them off as inconsequential and claim that they are just Republicans.

But they are not just Republican voices.

They are American voices.

They are the voices of Democrats, Libertarians and Independents too. They are people who have never before been compelled to pick up a sign and protest or demand that their government hear them. But after seeing the extremes of liberalism in action, they have been compelled to take a stand and just say “No !”

Yet while the President refuses to call terrorists terrorists and while he apologizes for America to foreign governments and extends hands of friendship to our enemies his administration calls fellow Americans dangerous mobs and characterizes them as inconsequential fringe groups.

The gall and wizardry of President Obama is more than disturbing. It is dangerous and although

the approach may work with the Reid-Obama-Pelosi-Enablers (R.O.P.E.) “it won’t play in Peoria”.

As for me, if this is the change America was suppose to believe in, let me click my heels together three times because “Toto, I have a feeling were not in Kansas anymore”.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

A New Approach To The Healthcare Dilemma & A Warning From Ronald Reagan About Socialized Medicine

Bookmark and Share
On April 4th , of 1960, Time Magazine ran a story that began as follows:

u4PrezHealthCareBlog“Shaping up as one of 1960’s most incendiary political issues is the problem of providing adequate medical care for those who need it most and can afford it least: the 15 million U.S. citizens 65 and over. A variety of bills calling for federal medical subsidies to the aged is before both the Senate and House. By far the most popular and controversial of all has been introduced by Rhode Island’s Democratic Representative Aime Forand, 64. Last week the Forand bill was drawing more mail than any other bill of any kind before Congress.”

Fast forward almost 50 years, boost the numbers and change the names and the same opening paragraph can be written of the new universal healthcare legislation that was recently hammered out by the most liberal legislative leaders Congress has ever housed.

Under the orders of the President of the United States, Congress must hurry up and pass a universal healthcare package. Yet this is not an issue easily solved.

After winning reelection in 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt sent Congress a national health-care program of his own.

It failed.

On November 19th of 1945 President Harry Truman declared that he would protect Americans from the “economic fears” of illness and gave Congress a national healthcare bill of his own that increased federal aid for healthcare, health education and research for the medical profession; and it was to make health insurance and disability insurance compulsory.

Truman’s initiative had a mixed reception in the Democrat controlled Congress of the time and on the Republican side people like Senator Robert Taft of Ohio declared that Truman‘s proposal was “the most socialistic measure” that “this Congress has ever had before it”.

Truman’s national healthcare initiative failed.

Sixty four years later and here we are again but now what Truman called national healthcare is called universal healthcare and President Obama wants Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to rush a meaningful plan together before Congress takes their traditional summer recess.

This debate has gone on for over seven decades but Obama, Pelosi and Reid are going to hammer out the elusive solution together in the first seven months of the new President’s administration.

Why is he rushing?

Could it be that President Obama wants to ram some half-assed legislation through immediately because he fears that the newness of his tenure in office which affords him the good will and popularity may not be there a year and a half from now when mid-term elections take place and the effects of his leadership set in?

Is such a partisan rush responsible or rational? Is it sensible?

I am not suggesting that important issues get sat upon while Americans see health costs rise and feel increasingly insecure about the future of their current healthcare coverage. What I am suggesting is a careful, thoughtful, comprehensive and different approach be taken. I am offering an approach different from those which other Democrats in President Obama’s position have taken and failed at.

Perhaps a bipartisan approach can be attempted. And maybe, just maybe President Obama could try and initiate a plan that does not involve a government takeover and government run solution that overrules the founding principles of our democracy. We have had enough of that from him already.

A start would be understanding that one solution for all is not appropriate and that the federal government could and should allow states the regulatory and legislative flexibility that would enable and inspire them into action.

The Democrat leadership in Congress, under the direction of President Obama, needs to understand that the many regions and populations in America are so varied that their differing conditions warrant different approaches to the different needs of our divergent society. Another words, a federalist approach to healthcare will not work. Democrats may seek to insure healthcare for all but a one for all national policy will not suit the needs of all.

That is just one reason why the differing states should have the flexibility to formulate different systems, systems that best suit the needs of each state’s population.

Yet while there should not be another failed national attempt to make one policy fit all, one direct line does exist which can allow, as Dr. Henry J. Aaron of the Brookings institute puts it, federalism to “spur bipartisan action on the uninsured“.

Bipartisanship is the key to any enduring solution to reduce the number of American citizens lacking healthcare. Bipartisanship is the one component that every Democrat proposed, national healthcare, initiative from Roosevelt in 1938 to Hillary Clinton in 1994 lacked. Without bipartisanship only one approach is looked at and the pool of ideas is limited to one school of thought.

That limited scope of thinking will inevitably leave many stones unturned and lead to many failures as such a single minded policy is imposed on all the states’ people.

Arranging allowances and guidelines for state experimentation is the first area where bipartisanship can allow for a federalist approach on healthcare.

With federal legislative guidelines and financial support, state experimentation would produce a myriad of various solutions and in time the best solutions for each state will evolve into better and stronger healthcare availability options fore all states.

Dr. Stuart Butler, a devoted and learned expert on the issue contends that “ Congress could enact a policy toolbox of federal initiatives that states could include and federal funding to the states would be linked to success in reaching the goals.”

Another issue that collectively, all the parties that make up Congress can work together on when it comes to national action on healthcare, is portability.

Millions of Americans cannot keep their coverage when they change jobs and often they can not continue with the same coverage they have throughout their lives as changes in their lives occur. Federal action that would allow for the portability of health insurance would solve this problem and help to stabilize insurance markets, reduce costs and ultimately reduce the fluctuating number of uninsured in America.

Comprehensive immigration reform measures that secure our borders are yet another bipartisan effort that could inspire a federalist approach that will significantly help to lower healthcare costs.

If Democrats can understand that we are a sovereign nation with borders that mean something and realize that Republicans are not an anti-immigration party, maybe cooler heads could prevail and a secure border can be achieved.

As an “Open Arms-Secure Borders” Republican, I know that most in the G.O.P. understand the national and moral value of immigration and that we welcome immigrants. The difference is that unlike liberals we do not condone and promote illegal immigration. We do not wish to promulgate an underground society and culture of illegal immigrants who hide from the light of day and the law. If the left could grasp these facts perhaps they could embark on a bipartisan effort to secure our borders.

With secure borders the flow of the millions of illegal immigrants who overtax our already overburdened emergency healthcare services will be sharply reduced. Currently millions of undocumented, untraceable illegal immigrants find themselves in need of emergency health care and in the end, the costs for their medical attention is tacked on to the bill of every medical procedure that every American citizen undergoes.

These are but a few options to the one size fits all, socialist approach to healthcare that Democrats in the past and present have tried and are trying to inflict upon society.

Each time Democrats have attempted to take the lead on the issue of healthcare, they have refused to work along bipartisan lines. Roosevelt presented his own partisan plan, and so did other Democrats like Aime Forand and Hillary Clinton. History shows that these same partisan, socialist approaches have always failed. Now President Obama has asked Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to follow the same path that all of histories other failed federal healthcare initiatives took.

Pelosi and Reid are not discussing healthcare with their Republican counterparts. They are simply crafting a proposal together that will suit the desires of their major backers such as the N.E.A., C.W.A., AFL-CIO and UAW.

Left to their own partisan tendencies these liberal leaders are allowing an alphabet soup of special interests influence a national policy for all Americans. Facts are not the soul determining factor in their partisan proposal and neither is the Constitution of the United States. The one sided healthcare bill being thrown about in Congress today totally ignores the founding principles of our once and hopefully still great nation.

The current conduct and intentions of the liberal controlled federal government simply proves that history repeats itself.

So much so that the dated words of Time Magazine from 1960 can be applied to the contemporary plans of liberals in 2009. So much so that even the urgent warning about socialized medicine that Ronald Reagan gave 20 years before he became President still applies to approach to healthcare that Democrats are taking today.

Below is a video that I prepared which contains that warning. Look at it and listen to it.

Allow yourself to grasp the truth of his words and allow yourself to see how, in so many cases, America has already ignored Ronald Reagan’s warning. So much so, that I dare suggest that the degrees to which our nation has already adopted socialism would have The Gipper leading a second American revolution…..a revolution of restoration to life that Reagan warned we might someday be telling future generations all about as we describe how America once was when men where free.


Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics


Bookmark and Share    I understand that some national policies are  moving us  towards socialism and is  removing incentive from our society.  I realize that rewarding mediocrity is something that, in the long run, benefits no one. But what I did not realize is that there exists a protest movement that is going with the government flow and accepting medicrioty as a means to teach government a lesson.  The movement is accepting the results of national policies and reducing their high levels of productivity which are being penalized more than rewarded.

atlas_02It is called Going Galt.

It stems from a classic American novel written by Ayn Rand called Atlas Shrugged. Although written in 1954, the book is as timely as ever.

It is a story about an America where the innovators and creators in our society have disappeared and we lose those of great talent and abilities. It is a theoretical description of the result of our loss of individuality and our market economy. In the book, the government is the oppressive bureaucracy that stifles success and rewards mediocrity. Government is the looter and it reflects the philosophy of socialism. Instead of rewarding success, government penalizes it.

As a result, a character in the book, named John Galt, covertly leads a movement to withdraw the most talented and innovative from the free market engine of the world economy. Galt leads those, who refuse to be exploited by looting governments, on a crusade that denies the looters any booty to loot.

Prompted by the government’s taking incentives out of success and innovation in order to spread the wealth, those who fuel our economy withdraw and government eventually loses its source of wealth and its means to sustain itself and the people it tries to spread wealth to.

That is the premise behind Going Gault.

One web site writes that “Going Galt is dropping out. Closing a business, leaving your job or just working to survive.”

This, in essence cuts off the funding source of government, otherwise known as the looters.

Without having your endless productivity to tax, the government will have nothing to loot and eventually the socialist desire to spread wealth is killed off by there being no wealth to spread.

Since we are becoming a society that increasingly punishes success and productivity many feel it is time for those who make the money and pay the taxes to take it easy, live on less and let the government looters try to spread wealth with very little available wealth.

Current economic policy directions are making the Going Galt  movement more and more prevalent. After all, rally07President Obama ran and won on a platform that promised to take money from those who are productive and redistribute it to those who are not as productive or successful. So where is the incentive to be so productive? Where is the desire to earn more if that only means that more will be taken from you. 

This leads us to a modern day version of Atlas Shrugged.

Imagine the local supermarket whose owner has more money taken away from them for having a good business. Now imagine that supermarket owner closing his store and putting a sign up on the door that says “Going Galt”. Imagine that sign hanging on those closed doors for three or four days a week.

Under the current system of penalizing success, the store owner may end up with the same amount of money in his own pocket after selling less product than he could have made for selling more products.

Of course the government will also yield less from that store owner and will have less wealth to hand out to the employees of that store who will already be losing out on three or four days of employment and salary.

It’s a vicious cycle that creates a downward spiral  prompted by socialist policies which can’t sustain themselves and certainly cannot sustain our government. It is also the impetus behind Going Galt.

Some ways to Go Galt include stop investing. Capital gains taxes remove your profits and enable the government to continue and expand socialist policies. So dry up the source of the financing of those policies. Stop investing.

HowToGoGalt.com also suggests that you “Visit your local school board, or send a letter asking the economics department to teach free market capitalism. A great book to suggest is Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics. I would also suggest donating Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, A Man In Full and other good books to your local school library. Put the pinch on local looters by voting down new tax levies, and supporting groups that fight new taxes. On the other hand it’s a good time to support vocational education and two year technical colleges. Stop giving money to your college alma mater. Just about every college embraces a socialist ideology.”

Going Galt is not a positive thing to have to do, it is really a last resort. But with the way things are going, many in society feel that we are that point.

After seeing some Republicans equivocate on fiscal issues and after witnessing Democrats adopt socialism, many feel that Going Galt,  breaking the government wealth distribution system and proving the point, is the only way to bring about change that is meaningful.

Going Galt  may actually be the change that we need in order to really give us hope again.

So the next time  a tax is raised, a new government program is created and a new private sector company is taken over by the federal government, send a message, Go Galt and let liberals begin to understand just how unsustainable socialism really is.

Bookmark and Share


Q: How does a politician or reporter sleep?
A: First he lies on one side, and then he lies on the other.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

DEAR MR. OBAMA, We’ve Heard You, Now Hear Us!

Dear Mr. Obama;

I have heard what you have said.

I have heard you call upon ending unfinished wars abroad while waging your own campaign of class warfare here at home.

I have heard your entire presidential campaign pit the working class against the wealthy and used the economic prosperity of some as a scapegoat for everyone else. I have listened to you suggest that the wealthy must fund a larger government bureaucracy that spreads their wealth.

I have listened to you outline plans that deal with everything except the principles of freedom that have fueled our economy and been the backbone of all that makes our nation great. In fact, in listening to your campaign rhetoric, it sounds like freedom is the enemy.

Your Robin Hood economic plan limits financial freedom while growing the size and scope of government so that the federal bureaucracy can determine all that individuals should determine.

Your education policies denounce the use of school vouchers and impair the ability of parents to exercise the freedom to educate their children in the school of their choosing.

Your energy policy invests historic amounts of government spending into achieving energy independence through alternative methods, a decade from now, while restricting the freedom to tap into the domestic natural resources available to us now.

Throughout your campaign I have heard you plot an economic plan that grows the size of a government that decides more for more people by limiting their freedom to make those decisions for themselves.

I have heard your plans to stifle the American entrepreneurial spirit and to make government replace free will by adopting a degree of socialism that more accurately reflects Cuba than our own constitution..

I have heard you promote the government doing more of what it shouldn’t at home while you advance a policy that would have the government doing less of what it should abroad.

When it comes to the international community you oppose pre-emptive actions that would reduce threats from foreign enemies. You have called the removal of Saddam Hussein “stupid” and our efforts to defend freedom “unnecessary .

I have heard you advance Nancy Pelosi’s tea with terrorist policies and your willingness to accept the unacceptable in order to negotiate with terrorist regimes.

I have listened to all your words but I have also listened to the words of others.

Others have not waged class warfare. Others have not called the cause of freedom stupid and others I have listened to have even accomplished things. They have been involved in what they speak of and some have even made sacrifices for what they believe in. In fact, out of all that I have heard from you, none of it has been as meaningful as one man who I have heard from only once in my life. His words are so profound and so poignant that I think it’s time for a change. Instead of me listening to you I want you to listen to him.


So, Dear Mr. Obama,

I have heard your arguments and after careful contemplation I have concluded that freedom is not the enemy and that government is not the answer to all of our problems.

I have concluded that government can however, provide the enemies of freedom with the right answers so long as our government is willing to give freedom the respect that it deserves.

I have concluded that government serves us best by allowing me and freedom to flourish and that government is best served by John McCain.



Obama’s plan to spread Joe the Plumber’s wealth is a plan that dilutes all of our well being and clogs up our free path to opportunity and prosperity.


 Unclog the crap that impedes us in Washinton, DC.Plunge Barack Obama’s plans to send the American dream down the drain. 




Leave a comment

Filed under politics


I have to apologize here from the get go. The other night my partner Nick, and I went out to a local diner for a quick bite to eat. We were seated at a booth in between a group of four behind me and a group of three senior citizens behind Nick. While perusing the menu my ears caught the phrase “I don’t like Obama”. It came from one of the ladies in the group sitting behind Nick .

Being preoccupied by politics, certain buzz words like election, President, McCain, or Obama, catch my attention even when I am not paying attention.

So this older woman’s utterance of the word “Obama” lit up my on my radar screen. Even though it may have been impolite to pay attention to a conversation not involving me, I couldn’t help myself.

So I apologize for any impolite eavesdropping, that I may be guilty of. It wasn’t my intent but I’m a political junkie, and as such, this election season is for me what Christmas is to a wide eyed, little boy.  It’s like the Super Bowl to football fans and I am just in tune to any references to politics. Besides, to put it nicely, this woman was not using her inside voice. So curiosity got the best of me and I paid attention to the political opinion that was unfolding.

The woman went on to say “I don’t like Obama but he’s got my vote”. The woman explained further “those Republicans are only for the rich and big business”

At this point the waitress came over to take the orders of Nick and I. Being distracted, I let my partner order first and I than quickly determined what I wanted. With my attention taken off of the conversation that I was not a part of, Nick and I started our own banter.

When the waitress returned with our drink orders, both Nick and myself happened to hear that same woman I overheard earlier say “and that “McCann”, “he just wants to give tax breaks to big companies”. At this point I had just begun to take a sip of my Pepsi with lemon and no ice when she continued “and who are those big businesses to make as much money as they do. They shouldn’t be allowed to make that much money in the first place”.

Upon hearing that , I gagged on my soda. Having caught that remark from right behind him, Nick knew what the cause of my discomfort was.

We were about to eat and after having heard what I just heard, I could not allow myself to pay any further attention and still be able to stomach the meal I was about to eat.

Nick knew my blood pressure was rising and quickly tried to establish our own conversation and provide a diversion from that which had me fuming. Our food came and we discussed the details of the event we were heading out to DJ.

Through it all, I could not help but allow the words of that woman to echo in my head. I couldn’t stop wondering if she actually knew what she said. Did she really believe, that in America, people should only be allowed to make a certain amount of money? Did she actually believe Democrat talking points and accept them as the truth?

I thought to myself, how little this woman really knew and how misinformed she was. Yet, despite her lack of understanding , awareness and information, she threw her words out with total conclusiveness and decisiveness. This is a woman who referred to John McCain as “John McCann”. She didn’t even know his name yet she acted like a brilliant sage who proclaimed Republicans are only for the rich and that businesses should only be allowed to make a certain amount of money.

What this woman neglected to realize was that Republicans and “John McCann” do not believe in penalizing success. They do not support limiting opportunity or making our government some type of communist politburo that does everything from control your wages to determining what, how and where your children are educated. She didn’t understand that Republicans were not for the rich or sponsors of class warfare but that they didn’t believe in penalizing success or taxation that goes so far that it taxes the dead and buried. This bitter, jealous woman could not wrap her head around the fact that “John McCann” is not trying to keep her down but that he is trying to prevent government from holding her back.

All these thoughts raced through my mind as Nick and I ate and as I tried to focus on our own discussion.

We chatted away and finished up our meal but in the back of my head I could not stop thinking about how gullible this woman was. She actually believed in the liberal bumper sticker slogans and campaign catch phrases that promoted liberal socialist policies in brightly colored wrapping paper and big ribbons and bows. She admitted that she didn’t even like Barack Obama. Yet because he was a Democrat and since they were against the rich, she was for them.

Beyond angering me, it worried me. I worried about how many more people in America held her thinking and how many despised the free market that comes with our democracy? How many Americans were actually supporting socialism and wanted to adopt it as our way of life?

With our meal finished, I got up before Nick to find our waitress. I put on my McCain-Palin jacket, prominently, found the waitress and asked her for not only my check but for the check of the people at the table behind Nick. I told her that I wanted to pay for it. The waitress was taken back for a moment and said “Oh, Ok, here ya go”. After paying and getting my change, I asked if she could give me a blank dinner check to write a message on and that she could give to the customers I paid for. She handed one to me and I wrote:


“Dear Fellow Americans;
I paid your check.
I did so because this is still America and in it I can still make as much as my ambition, skill, and willingness to make allows. In it I am also still allowed to keep enough of it so that I can spend as much of it as I want and on what I want. If Barack Obama is elected he will determine all that for me. So enjoy my generosity while you can because if you get your way, we will all be losing our own ways.

P.S.: John McCain is the man trying to preserve democracy. Tom McCann is the company you buy your shoes from.”

Upon leaving the diner with Nick, and after paying for more meals than I expected, just to make a point, I realized that just like the government should do, I too should mind my own business.

After reading POLITICS 24/7‘s post on Keith Olbermann, conservative talk show host Tim Conway, Jr., has booked it’s author, Anthony Del Pellegrino on it’s show Thursday, October 23rd at 9:15 pm (pst).

For east coasters thats 12:15 am, which technically makes it Friday, October 24th for us.

But regardless, east coast, west coast and everyone in between, I hope you call in with your two cents. 

In fact, if you are a conservative put a bucks worth in.

I hope to hear from you. 




Nights in Southern California are always brighter with Tim Conway Jr. weeknights from 8PM – 11PM.

Conway is in his 11th year at 97.1, treating Los Angeles to a wide variety of topics ranging from ‘LIVE’ Police Chases to the ‘World of Entertainment.’ With Tim’s amazing sense of humor (that he obviously acquired from his mother’s side), listeners know that they’ll always learn something and smile at the same time!

Tim Conway Jr. was born and raised in Southern California; living in the San Fernando Valley. He attended Portola Junior High in Tarzana and finished his education in Van Nuys graduating in 1981 from Birmingham High. His down-to-earth humor brings a sense of refreshing levity to all of us surrounded by lunatics in Southern California.

The Tim Conway Jr. Show is designed ot help Southern California wind down after a hellish day avoiding bullets on the local freeways. Conway hosts the longest running radio game show ever Thursday night at 8PM, “What the Hell Did Jesse Jackson Say?” Conway also features the David Letterman “Top 10 List,” an exclusive audio recap of one of TV’s hottest benchmarks.

The Tim Conway Jr. Show…the new and improved comedy talk show in town and the only place ot find out what’s going on in this crazy city of ours! Weeknights from 8PM to 11PM…only on 97.1 the FM Talk Station

punchline politics

  A Quickie 

One day George W. Bush and Dick Cheney walk into a diner. A waitress walks up to them and asks if she can take their order. Bush leans close to her and says, “Honey, can I have a quickie?”

The waitress is appalled and yells at the President about women’s rights and storms away.

Cheney then says to Bush, “George, its pronounced ‘quiche’.”



Filed under politics