Are You Voting for Revenge or for Love of Country? (Videos)

By Kasey Jachim

I am sure most of you have seen Obama’s latest campaign hate speech. Instead of listing his accomplishments (ummmm, Obamacare and doubling the national debt), he chose to tear into Mitt Romney.  His disregard for civility regarding Romney, Conservatives, Congress, the Constitution, and even voters never ceases to amaze me.  Obama recently asked his supporters to help him win another term by voting.  Not just to vote for him, but to seek revenge by voting against the evil Republican.  “Voting is the best Revenge” is his latest mantra.

 

 

In contrast to this petulant, narcissistic, finger-pointing, Bush-blaming man-child, Governor Romney gave supporters a positive list of his past accomplishments in business, the Olympics, and as Governor of a Democratic state.  He laid out his plans and even said he would begin day one by accepting responsibility and not blaming his predecessor!  Rather than counter Obama’s whiney appeal with another negative message, Mitt Romney is asking voters to “Vote for Love of Country” not revenge!

The following ad contrasts the main differences between the two men:

 

 

Which man would you rather vote for? I know who I want – the man with a positive message who will cross the aisle and bring America back to the standard of excellence we are used to!  The man who is actually PROUD of America – Mitt Romney.  Pray and vote – I can see him in the White House from my back yard!

Paul Ryan Schools Obama on Obamacare and Economics in Six Minutes (Video)

Congressman Paul Ryan explains the ‘real’ cost of Obamacare and budget gimmicks to President Obama.  “Hiding spending doesn’t reduce spending.”  He also adds, “If you think the American people want a government takeover of healthcare, I would respectfully submit you are not listening to them!”

Paul Ryan knows economics and the Obama team best beware – he will tear them apart!

 

Dem Senator Patrick Leahy Also Threatens Supreme Court over Obamacare

By via The Western Center for Journalism

Two months ago, Barack Obama decided he could intimidate the United States Supreme Court into finding his namesake healthcare plan Constitutional. Overturning the Affordable Care Act “…would amount to an unprecedented, extraordinary step of judicial activism” said the President at a rare White House news conference, adding “…I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Though someone with the hyper-arrogant mentality of the Manchurian Candidate doesn’t really need a reason to direct this sort of psycho-babble at a presumptive enemy, Obama was probably responding to information provided by far left Justice Elena Kagan that the Court’s closed-door, preliminary vote on ObamaCare had not gone very well. Each Friday, the 9 justices gather for an initial vote on the cases heard during the week. And although these weekly conferences are to be strictly confidential, it’s a safe bet that Obama’s Court stoolie was on the phone with the White House minutes after its conclusion.

However, as this preemptive strike on the court was met with a nationwide flurry of criticism even from a number of his media supporters, Obama made no further reference to the prospective ruling.

But on Monday, a new county was heard from. Dedicated leftist Senator Patrick Leahy directed a 2000 word dissertation at the Court from the Senate floor, selecting as his principle target Chief Justice John Roberts. “The constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act is the current instance in which narrow ideology and partisanship are pressuring the Supreme Court to intervene where it should not,” claimed Leahy, making clear his view that the Court has no business interfering with a Congressional assault on the Constitution. The senator advanced the 2000 Bush/Gore decision as an example of the sort of “judicial activism” that “shook the confidence of the American people in the Supreme Court.”  He ridiculed conservative justices for their tough questioning of principle ObamaCare advocate Solicitor General Donald Verilli during oral arguments, stating “their action will not help restore American’s confidence in the Court to fairly apply the law.”

And he alternately praised and threatened the Chief Justice, literally claiming that if Roberts joined other conservatives in a 5-4 decision against ObamaCare it would “…undoubtedly further erode the reputation and legitimacy of the Supreme Court.”

But what prompted Leahy’s sudden decision to lecture the Supreme Court as to its proper role in government? Was it a last ditch effort to intimidate justices into finding ObamaCare constitutional? Or has Kagan perhaps advised Democrats that Roberts is “wavering” a bit, leading Leahy to believe his misguided, nonsensical claims might persuade the Chief Justice to decide in favor of passage?

Since its enactment in 2010, liberals have believed the Affordable Care Act to be a sure thing to pass Constitutional muster. They were stunned when Justices took offense at the law’s contempt for individual liberty during oral arguments. After all, how could forcing Americans to purchase something they don’t want be unconstitutional if it’s for their own good!

If 5 Justices rule the ObamaCare individual mandate unconstitutional, the American people will hear a wailing and gnashing of teeth unequaled since the pro-Gore efforts of the Florida Supreme Court were undone after the 2000 election. We will be in for some very entertaining days.

For more information click here.

A Black Man, The Progressive’s Perfect Trojan Horse

By Lloyd Marcus on March 25, 2010

As millions of my fellow Americans, I am outraged, devastated and extremely angry by the democrat’s unbelievable arrogance and disdain for We The People. Despite our screaming “no” from the rooftops, they forced Obamacare down our throats. Please forgive me for using the following crude saying, but it is very appropriate to describe what has happened. “Don’t urinate on me and tell me it’s raining.” Democrats say their mission is to give all Americans health care. The democrats are lying. Signing Obamacare into law against our will and the Constitution is tyranny and step one of their hideous goal of having as many Americans as possible dependent on government, thus controlling our lives and fulfilling Obama’s promise to fundamentally transform America.

I keep asking myself. How did our government move so far from the normal procedures of getting things done? Could a white president have so successfully pulled off shredding the Constitution to further his agenda? I think not.

Ironically, proving America is completely the opposite of the evil racist country they relentlessly accuse her of being, progressives used America’s goodness, guilt and sense of fair play against her. In their quest to destroy America as we know it, progressives borrowed a brilliant scheme from Greek mythology. They offered America a modern day Trojan Horse, a beautifully crafted golden shiny new black man as a presidential candidate. Democrat Joe Biden lorded Obama as the first clean and articulate African American candidate. Democrat Harry Reid said Obama only uses a black dialect when he wants.

White America relished the opportunity to vote for a black man naively believing they would never suffer the pain of being called racist again. Black Americans viewed casting their vote for Obama as the ultimate Affirmative Action for America’s sins of the past.

Then there were the entitlement loser voters who said, “I’m votin’ for the black dude who promises to take from those rich SOBs and give to me”.

Just as the deceived Trojans dragged the beautifully crafted Trojan Horse into Troy as a symbol of their victory, deceived Americans embraced the progressive’s young, handsome, articulate and so called moderate black presidential candidate as a symbol of their liberation from accusation of being a racist nation. Also like the Trojan Horse, Obama was filled with the enemy hiding inside.

Sunday, March 21, 2010, a secret door opened in Obama, the shiny golden black man. A raging army of democrats charged out. Without mercy, they began their vicious bloody slaughter of every value, freedom and institution we Americans hold dear; launching the end of America as we know it.

Wielding swords of votes reeking with the putrid odor of back door deals, the democrats landed a severe death blow to America and individual rights by passing Obamacare.

The mainstream liberal media has been relentlessly badgering the Tea Party movement with accusations of racism. Because I am a black tea party patriot, I am bombarded with interviewers asking me the same veiled question.“Why are you siding with these white racists against America’s first African American president?” I defend my fellow patriots who are white stating, “These patriots do not give a hoot about Obama’s skin color. They simply love their country and oppose his radical agenda. Obama’s race is not an issue”.

Recently, I have come to believe that perhaps I am wrong about Obama’s race not being an issue. In reality, Obama’s presidency has everything to do with racism, but not from the Tea Party movement. Progressives and Obama have exploited his race from the rookie senator’s virtually unchallenged presidential campaign to his unprecedented bullying of America into Obamacare. Obama’s race trumped all normal media scrutiny of him as a presidential candidate and most recently even the Constitution of the United States. Obamacare forces all Americans to purchase health care which is clearly unconstitutional.

No white president could get away with boldly and arrogantly thwarting the will of the American people and ignoring laws. President Clinton tried universal health care. Bush tried social security reform. The American people said “no” to both president’s proposals and it was the end of it. So how can Obama get away with giving the American people the finger? The answer. He is black.

The mainstream liberal media ontinues to portray all who oppose Obama in any way as racist. Despite a list of failed policies, overreaches into the private sector, violations of the Constitution and planned destructive legislation too numerous to mention in this article, many Americans are still fearful of criticizing our first black president. Incredible.

My fellow Americans, you must not continue to allow yourselves to be “played” and intimidated by Obama’s race or the historical context of his presidency. If we are to save America, the greatest nation on the planet, Obama’s progressive agenda must be stopped.

Lloyd Marcus, (black) Unhyphenated American, singer/songwriter, entertainer, author, artist, and Tea Party patriot

LloydMarcus.com

For more click here.

H/T Leslie Burt

Other related articles

Obama’s war on individual liberty

By William Murray via WMD  H/T Leslie Burt

The mandate drafted under Obamacare which forces church organizations to purchase health-care policies that provide for contraceptives and sterilization and abortifacient pills is just one small step toward Barack Obama’s hard-left goal of establishing a centrally planned society. The effect of the health-care mandates is more far-reaching than even critics first reported.

Under Obamacare, standards are set by bureaucrats, and all insurance policies must supply mandated services. Most likely the issue of contraception was the opening shot for Obama and his administration to soften up the opposition. The goal is rationing of care according to the “quality of life.” The quality of life concept is a leftist central planning goal that calls for “defective” babies to be aborted and care to be withheld in end-of-life situations to save government funds. As with central planning in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, health care will be available only for those who can continue to contribute to society. Moral issues are forgotten as they are not central to government.

Most conservatives point to Friedrich von Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” in the context of defending free enterprise. For example Rep. Paul Ryan is an expert on the works of Hayek and the economists of the Austrian School. But the thrust of “The Road to Serfdom” was not economic, but rather the loss of liberty under central planning. On moral issues Hayek wrote:

“What our generation is in danger of forgetting is not only that morals are of necessity a phenomenon of individual conduct but also that they can exist only in the sphere in which the individual is free to decide for himself and is called upon voluntarily to sacrifice personal advantage to the observance of a moral rule. Outside the sphere of individual responsibility there is neither goodness nor badness, neither opportunity for moral merit nor the chance of proving one’s conviction by sacrificing one’s desires to what one thinks right.”

At its heart Obamacare is a worst-case scenario of central planning, putting aside not only the will of religious organizations, but the self-determination of individuals as well.

There is no law forcing church organizations to supply contraceptives; this provision is not in the massive Obamacare law pushed through by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid. The mandate for contraceptives is a “rule” written by the Health and Human Services Department under the authority of the original bill. Obamacare gives HHS the authority to mandate virtually anything regarding health care. In the extreme, HHS could order that all costly attempts to save premature babies be stopped. Medicare already mandates that costly medical care for the elderly be restricted.

There are lists of approved Medicare services, and doctors may not prescribe anything that is not on that list for Medicare patients. This same central control is now becoming obvious in Obamacare. Central planning is not limited to just ordering individuals to buy insurance.

Going back to Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom”:

“If the law says that such a board or authority may do what it pleases, anything that board or authority does is legal – but its actions are certainly not subject to the Rule of Law. By giving the government unlimited powers, the most arbitrary rule can be made legal; and in this way a democracy may set up the most complete despotism imaginable.”

Pay close attention to this portion of the above quote: “… a democracy may set up the most complete despotism imaginable.”

Canada is defined as a democracy, but there is virtually no freedom of speech in that nation. Individuals have been fined for letters of opinion sent to newspapers. The courts there forced one man who was publicly critical of Islam to work in a mosque as public service. Democracy and liberty are not synonymous. It could be possible for an individual to have greater personal liberty under a monarchy than under a democracy whose bureaucrats have been given unlimited rule-writing powers.

The problem of the loss of liberty through central planning goes beyond Obamacare. Our Congress has abdicated its responsibility in many areas, giving the authority to bureaucrats to write “rules” that have the force of law, “rules” that if violated can bring about not only fines but prison time. The Environmental Protection Agency has jailed innocent land owners for such crimes as cleaning garbage from their property.

Oddly, conservatives have aided in the rush to central planning. Republicans in Congress have sworn off “earmarks,” thus giving Barack Obama and the bureaucrats the full authority to spend trillions of dollars a year as they see fit without congressional oversight. It is now Obama who decides which states get new bridges, not the Congress. Apparently, tea-party members believe that having Obama decide where to spend trillions of dollars is better than the “corruption” of congressmen trying to bring jobs to their districts. The tea party is unwittingly assisting in the creation of even more central planning.

The problem with Obamacare is not Obamacare. The problem stems from both major political parties moving away from the concept of individual liberty and toward central planning, whether it is George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” or Barack Obama’s attempt to control medical care for the entire nation from one central location in Washington, D.C.

We must heed the warnings of Friedrich von Hayek and dismantle the central planning monster we have created in Washington before it devours the last of our liberties.


William J. Murray is the chairman of the Washington, D.C.-based Religious Freedom Coalition and the author of seven books including “My Life Without God,” which chronicles his early life in the home of destructive atheist and Marxist leader Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the woman who filed the lawsuit removing prayer and Bible reading from America’s public schools. Having lived the Ayn Rand lifestyle, he has a unique prospective of the political candidates.

Overreach: Obamacare vs. the Constitution

By  , The Washington Post

Give him points for cleverness. President Obama’s birth control “accommodation” was as politically successful as it was morally meaningless. It was nothing but an accounting trick that still forces Catholic (and other religious) institutions to provide medical insurance that guarantees free birth control, tubal ligation and morning-after abortifacients — all of which violate church doctrine on the sanctity of life.

The trick is that these birth control/abortion services will supposedly be provided independently and free of charge by the religious institution’s insurance company. But this changes none of the moral calculus. Holy Cross Hospital, for example, is still required by law to engage an insurance company that is required by law to provide these doctrinally proscribed services to all Holy Cross employees.

Nonetheless, the accounting device worked politically. It took only a handful of compliant Catholic groups — Obamacare cheerleaders dying to return to the fold — to hail the alleged compromise and hand Obama a major political victory.

Before, Obama’s coalition had been split. His birth control mandate was fiercely opposed by such stalwart friends as former Virginia governor Tim Kaineand pastor Rick Warren (Obama’s choice to give the invocation at his inauguration), who declared he would rather go to jail than abide by the regulation. After the “accommodation,” it was the (mostly) Catholic opposition that fractured. The mainstream media then bought the compromise as substantive, and the issue was defused.A brilliant sleight of hand. But let’s for a moment accept the president on his own terms. Let’s accept his contention that this “accommodation” is a real shift of responsibility to the insurer. Has anyone considered the import of this new mandate? The president of the United States has just ordered private companies to give away for free a service that his own health and human services secretary has repeatedly called a major financial burden.

On what authority? Where does it say that the president can unilaterally order a private company to provide an allegedly free-standing service at no cost to certain select beneficiaries?

This is government by presidential fiat. In Venezuela, that’s done all the time. Perhaps we should call Obama’s “accommodation” Presidential Decree No. 1.

Consider the constitutional wreckage left by Obamacare:

First, the assault on the free exercise of religion. Only churches themselves are left alone. Beyond the churchyard gate, religious autonomy disappears. Every other religious institution must bow to the state because, by this administration’s regulatory definition, church schools, hospitals and charities are not “religious” and thus have no right to the free exercise of religion — no protection from being forced into doctrinal violations commanded by the state.

Second, the assault on free enterprise. To solve his own political problem, the president presumes to order a private company to enter into a contract for the provision of certain services — all of which must be without charge. And yet, this breathtaking arrogation of power is simply the logical extension of Washington’s takeover of the private system of medical care — a system Obama farcically pretends to be maintaining.

Under Obamacare, the state treats private insurers the way it does government-regulated monopolies and utilities. It determines everything of importance. Insurers, by definition, set premiums according to risk. Not anymore. The risk ratios (for age, gender, smoking, etc.) are decreed by Washington. This is nationalization in all but name. The insurer is turned into a middleman, subject to state control — and presidential whim.

Third, the assault on individual autonomy. Every citizen without insurance is ordered to buy it, again under penalty of law. This so-called individual mandate is now before the Supreme Court — because never before has the already hypertrophied Commerce Clause been used to compel a citizen to enter into a private contract with a private company by mere fact of his existence.

This constitutional trifecta — the state invading the autonomy of religious institutions, private companies and the individual citizen —  should not surprise. It is what happens when the state takes over one-sixth of the economy.

In 2010, when all this lay hazily in the future, the sheer arrogance of Obamacare energized a popular resistance powerful enough to deliver an electoral shellacking to Obama. Yet two years later, as the consequences of that overreach materialize before our eyes, the issue is fading. This constitutes a huge failing of the opposition party whose responsibility it is to make the opposition argument.

Every presidential challenger says that he will repeal Obamacare on Day One. Well, yes. But is any of them making the case for why?