Freedom. On This Day, It Is Worth Remembering What Our Government Is Suppose To Stand For.

Bookmark and Share  On this day, 236 years ago, The United States won its independence because we were determined to be free and because we refused to relinquish control of our lives to anyone other than our creator.  236 years later we must not only celebrate the greatness of that moment, we must also recapture that same resolve to be free that the founders of our government intended.

So on this day, here is some worthwhile reading for all Americans.  It is our Declaration of Independence.  When reading this,  please give added thoughts to the section that declares whenever any form of Government becomes destructive to our way of life, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.  If you do, you will come to realize what this November’s election is all about.

Happy Independence Day America.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.


The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1 Georgia:    Button Gwinnett    Lyman Hall    George Walton

Column 2 North Carolina:    William Hooper    Joseph Hewes    John Penn South Carolina:    Edward Rutledge    Thomas Heyward, Jr.    Thomas Lynch, Jr.    Arthur Middleton

Column 3 Massachusetts: John Hancock Maryland: Samuel Chase William Paca Thomas Stone Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe Richard Henry Lee Thomas Jefferson Benjamin Harrison Thomas Nelson, Jr. Francis Lightfoot Lee Carter Braxton

Column 4 Pennsylvania:    Robert Morris    Benjamin Rush    Benjamin Franklin    John Morton    George Clymer    James Smith    George Taylor    James Wilson    George Ross Delaware:    Caesar Rodney    George Read    Thomas McKean

Column 5 New York:    William Floyd    Philip Livingston    Francis Lewis    Lewis Morris New Jersey:    Richard Stockton    John Witherspoon    Francis Hopkinson    John Hart    Abraham Clark

Column 6 New Hampshire:    Josiah Bartlett    William Whipple Massachusetts:    Samuel Adams    John Adams    Robert Treat Paine    Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island:    Stephen Hopkins    William Ellery Connecticut:    Roger Sherman    Samuel Huntington    William Williams    Oliver Wolcott New Hampshire:    Matthew Thornton

Bookmark and Share

CPAC’s Conservative Message

Despite Romney’s strawpoll win, the anti-establishment message of CPAC came through loud and clear from various speakers.  Alan West, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, and even at times the Presidential candidates: the only way we can truly be free is by reclaiming the role of the church and community from the Federal Government.

For several years now the conservative movement has allowed private charity to flirt with and even get in bed with the Federal Government under the understanding that private organizations can use federal dollars much more efficiently than government bureaucracies.  Then along came Barack Obama.  It makes me think of Star Wars and Darth Vader’s line “Pray I don’t alter the deal any further”.

The problem is that conservatives abandoned their principles.  Trusting a pro-family, pro-conservative President in George W. Bush, we signed on to faith based initiatives.  Perhaps we never expected a President who would leverage those relationships to gain control over Christianity and use Christian institutions to spread liberalism.  We never expected a President who in three short years would be to the point of forcing Christian institutions to provide abortion pills or suffer the consequences.

The Government cannot protect our sacred institutions.  The government is using our tax dollars to control our sacred institutions.

The problem is that only one candidate in this has talked about the sort of shrinking of government necessary to get the government out of the charity and faith business altogether.  While he has appeared impotent when pressed, Ron Paul is the only candidate who will actually say that the government doesn’t belong in the insurance business or the charity business.  Mitt Romney would bring us back to the George W. Bush days when faith based initiatives allowed faiths to still manage themselves.  Newt and Santorum would certainly respect religious freedom, but would also strengthen the ties between government and faith based organizations with the same deadly good intentions W had.

This is not an endorsement for Ron Paul, but it is an acknowledgement that when it comes to the responsibility of Christians and community, Paul is more in line with the 2010 freshmen, and older wise sages like Huckabee, who must rise to the top if conservatism and freedom of religion is to survive in our country.  Perhaps Newt, Mitt and Rick will be persuaded by Paul on this like they were on the Fed.

Click Here to Join White House 2012 at CPAC Via Our Official Livestream of the Conference

Bookmark and Share    Today is CPAC and as an official CPAC Blog, White House 2012 is proud to have our own David  Cowan reporting to us from CPAC.

We are also proud to provide you with a White House 2012 livestream of the event provided to us by CPAC.  To join this gala conservative extravaganza live, simply click on the live feed at the following link http://videosrvr.com/player/1328470235957283072


Click here for a schedule of events and to find out when your favorite leader will be speaking.

Bookmark and Share

Ron Paul to Make His Presidential Campaign Official in New Hampshire

Bookmark and Share Congressman Ron Paul will officially declare his candidacy for President of the United States on Friday, May 13th. The announcement will be made in Exeter, New Hampshire

According to CNN, along with Pauls announcement will come several endorsements.

After appearing in last Thursdays presidential debate, the announcement that he is running for President comes as no surprise, but what would be surprising is if Ron Pauls campaign gains anymore traction than either of his previous two presidential campaigns did.

Bookmark and Share

Presidential Punch Lines: White House 2012 Jokes and Pokes

Bookmark and Share White House 2012 is proud to introduce a new category of posts called Presidential Punch Lines.

Until Inauguration Day in 2013, Presidential Punch Lines will be poking some fun at the individual who is sticking us with more government, more spending and less freedom, our President, Barack Obama.Whether we like him or not, he is our nation’s President and at the very leasrt, the office he holds warrants respects. But that respect does not make him or the office of President immune from some good natured humor. And our humor is not just limited to him. His friends in elected office, (Republicans and Democrats alike) and at the DNC are also open to being joked about. If they have anything to do with the White House, they are all fair game.

White House 2012 Mug: Each month, it will be awarded to the individual who sends in the the funniest original Presidential Punch Line material

Be it policy, personal qualities, or public faux pas, it’s all up for grabs here at Presidential Punch Lines. And while we will provide you with some of thehumor here, we hope to have you provide some it too. So White House 2012 would to welcome you to send in your own funny presidential jokes, cartoons, images, and videos. If you have materail that you would like to be considered for reproduction in White House 2012, send them to:

Tell us if it is your own original work and the name you would like to be publiclycredited by.

Each month, the best materail will receive a White House 2012 mug. (It may not be much but it’s something (Contrary to liberal impressions not all of us Republicans are rich by any definition they have this week)

So join White House 2012 in tickling some poitical funny bones and help us laugh at that which if we didn’t laugh about, we’d cry over.

Photobucket

We’ll start you off with this little gem:

It was recently reported in the news that the President had been accidentally locked out of the White House. For that one panicked moment Obama thought that they must have found his real birth certificate.

Bookmark and Share

Is it me?

Donald Trump is on to something. Trump was on the Rush Limbaugh radio show today during Rush’s annual Leukemia Lymphoma fundraiser, and Rush mentioned that the most recent poll has Trump in the lead. That’s when Trump said this: “I don’t know if it’s me or the message…”

The Donald may recognize that many consider him to be about as serious a candidate as Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, or Ron Paul. On the other hand, conservatives are eating up Trumps no nonsense, pro-America, anti-Obama message.

It is the same

Do people love Trump? Or what he stands for?

message that brings tens of thousands of people to Palin rallies and has conservatives who don’t take Paul seriously as a Presidential candidate standing and applauding when he speaks and admitting great respect for him. It’s a message of a strong country, low taxes, low spending, limited government, and free markets. But is it electable?

“Mainstream” candidates tend to temper their rhetoric and take veiled jabs at one another while punctuating their sentences with political buzzwords like compromise, bipartisan, together, and of course, both sides are equally to blame.

But besides TEA Party favorite Republicans, there is another candidate in 2012 who has taken a no non-sense, partisan approach to elections. In fact, while giving only minimal lip service to bipartisan togetherness, the Democrat’s sole 2012 candidate has given us such phrases as “if they bring a knife, we’ll bring a gun” and has filled his campaigns and Presidency with partisan rhetoric. Barack Obama, even while being portrayed as a sort of political messiah who would unite our country, took no issue with blaming the nation’s problems on Bush, even as he continued many of Bush’s policies.

We may all wish that the nation was united and that politicians could just magically work together and fix things the right way, but in all honesty there are incredibly clear lines of demarcation between the left and right. This leaves the right with a serious question: do we campaign the way we have been told to and pretend the next President can unite the country? Or do we show the kind of confidence in conservatism that Trump, Palin, Bachmann, Paul, and other popular, not serious candidates are using to draw the masses and win polls?

The Democrat in 2012 has found his confidence in extreme liberalism.

Gingrich Tells House Republicans to Place Budget Cuts Over Government Shutdown

Bookmark and Share As President Obama and Senate Democrats face-off with House Republicans on matters of the budget that could force a March 6th shutdown of the federal government, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich recently penned an excellent editorial in the Washington Post which lent advice to Republicans that wasbased upon his own firs hand experience . It was 16 years ago when the Gingrich led House of Representatives and President Clinton clashed over the budget and actually forced a shutdown of government.

In his editorial Gingrich explains that at a crucial juncture in 1995, after technically fulfilling several budgetary aspects of the Contract With America , he and fellow Republicans weren’t interested in procedural success but instead understood that they were elected to deliver results. So the House Republican leadership decided that they would voluntarily balance the budget eventhough they were unable toachievea balanced budgetamendment mandating such a thing.

The former Speaker states that after the House adopted a timetable and created a plan that would end deficit spending by 2002, the Clinton White House and Senate Democrats set out to test our seriousness. They made a calculated, cynical decision to use the threat of a presidential veto – which would close the government – to insist that we drop our balanced budget.

Gingrich adds that:

it was President Bill Clinton’s veto of our budget in December 1995 that closed the government. The White House knew that it could use the power of the presidency and the support of liberal media to blame us. So, we faced a choice. We could cave in and be accepted by the Washington establishment, or we could stand firm for a balanced budget for the American people. We decided to stick to our principles through a very contentious and difficult period. Our attempt to balance the federal budget was distorted in the news media as an effort to ruin family vacations, frustrate visitors to the nation’s capital and prevent government employees from going to work. For the Republican leadership, the effort to hold together the House and Senate caucuses while negotiating with the White House became extraordinarily exhausting.

But in the end it was Republican determination which ultimately produced the first of four consecutive balanced budgets since the 1920s balanced budgets that paid off more than $450 billion in federal debt, overhauled welfare, strengthened Medicare and enacted the first tax cut in 16 years. Gingrich added;

It was this tax cut that boosted economic growth and allowed us to balance the budget four years earlier than projected. During my years as speaker, more than 8.4 million new jobs were created, reducing the national unemployment rate from 5.6 percent to 4.3 percent.”

After laying out the case Newt urges the G.O.P. to work to keep the government open, unless it requires breaking their word to the American people and giving up their principles. It his belief that House Republicans should give President Obama and Senate Democrats the opportunity to sign significant spending reductions and keep the government open, or to veto their cuts and close the government. And if they go for the second option Republicans must;

make clear that it is their stubborn liberalism that is closing the government.

The approach which Gingrich takes is both a moral one and a strategic one. Morally we as Republicans know that the moral thing to do is to begin to make sure that we stop spending more than we have. Furthermore; we realize that the proper way to do this is by cutting spending not raising taxes. Therefore the Gingrich approach is the right thing to do. It is in fact what they were elected to do.

Strategically though Gingrich is also correct to warn us to preempt the liberal media biases and general liberal spin machine that will undoubtedly try to paint Republicans as the heartless fiends who would should down government and take from the poor to give to the rich.

For Gingrichs advice to work, every Republican entity from the RNC to state and local Republican committees and from the Republican Governors Association the National Republican Senatorial and Congressional campaign committees must get on the same page and join with TEA Party groups across the nation in a campaign that can make Democrats inability to stop spending like drunken sailors the blame for such a a government shutdown.

Only if the forces which elected the new Republican House majority, stay united behind the issues they voted on, and only if House Republicans prove to be committed to those issues will it work. Without such a partnership of commitment to cuts by legislators and of , commitment by voters to the legislators who support such cuts, the news will not be good for the G.O.P. But if this partnership holds firm the real bad guys can take the heat for their real bad decisions.

I would also add this. Republicans should be much more afraid of compromising their principles than of a government shutdown. If they do not go all out to achieve the significant budget cuts they seek, voters will turn their backs on them for years to come. For many voters, 2010 was a last chance for Democrats to prove themselves to be sincere fiscal conservatives not liberal spenders. As such if the government remains open on March 6th but Republicans failed to achieve any significant spending solutions, the majorities that elected them in to office will be much less inclined to vote for them again. On the other hand, if there is a government shutdown and Republicans have shown that it is because Democrats refused to make necessary spending cuts, those who supported them before, will continue to do so and more will join them.

The bottom line is that Newt is right. Now if he is willing to take this message and translate it into a Republican campaign for President, it just make have a lot of play.

Bookmark and Share

Palin polling strong…on issues

Can Palin Make a Comeback?

Sarah Palin has front runner Mitt Romney out polled on social issues and national security. She tops Gingrich on social issues, national security, and the economy. Her biggest weakness according to a recent Gallup poll is on Government spending and power, where she ranks behind Romney, Huckabee and Gingrich. Unfortunately for her, that was also the top issue according to respondents.

Huckabee wins the Government spending and power question with Romney right behind him.

Mitt Romney had a balanced performance in the poll, except when it comes to social issues. Here he only garnered 7%, where he still beat Gingrich by one point.

Gingrich took it on the chin in this poll, falling behind in every category except the Government spending and power category where he barely edged out Palin.

Gingrich Faces Uphill Battle

CPAC demonstrated that the issues that drive Republicans to the polls in 2012 will vary between libertarian, social conservative and fiscal conservative with surprisingly less overlap than the party has seen in the past. Romney will do well with fiscal conservatives, but may struggle to get enough of a majority if he cannot improve his social image among conservatives.

Palin’s low rating for Government spending and power surprised me a little bit. She was hit hard in this area when she ran with McCain and put herself forward as a standard for fiscal conservatism and smaller government. This standard was severely tested in the 2008 election and no stone was left unturned. Even her prominence in the TEA party has not helped her restore her image in this area.

Daniels Issues A Dire Warning Over “Trickle-Down Government”

 Bookmark and Share  In an interview with the BBC, Governor Mitch Daniels warns that the United States is on the verge of collapse because of out of control spending that is about to bankrupt the nation. He called the crisis a “genuine survival-level issue” similar in urgency to that of nuclear threat.

Daniels goes on to describe the Obama stimulus package, which was suppose to turn the American economy around, as a form of “trickle-down government”. He explains that it was a poorly constructed formula that poured funds into a “growing government edifice”.

According to the Governor;

“We’ve had this reverse outcome, in which the private sector has continued to shrink, and the government sector has gotten bigger, and that’s not a very good formula for long-run success.”  Daniels added;

I start from a premise that maybe others don’t. I believe America — for the first time other than the nuclear threat of a few decades ago — faces a genuine survival level issue. My reading of history and of economic history tells me that there are points of no return, past which nations really will not recover to anything like their previous strength. If you don’t think things are that serious — if the arithmetic doesn’t speak to you in the same way — then you wouldn’t agree with many of the other .” 

In presenting the interview, the BBC didn’t fail to describe Daniels as contender for President and in covering the Governor statements many foreign publications introduced him as “a strong contender to oppose Barack Obama in the 2012 elections.”

Daniels’ strong statements on the American economic crisis demonstrates his intention to focus on economic issues, a strategy that would have legs in a run for the Republican presidential nomination. And in Mitch’s case, his record of downsizing government and successful management of his state’s budget at a time when all others around him are struggling with overwhelming deficits, will make him a authoritative figure on the economy, an issue that is likely to dominate the political landscape in 2011 and 2012.

Bookmark and Share

Jim DeMint & the Potential “the Less We Do, the Better” Presidency

Jim DeMint

Senator DeMint

Bookmark and Share    Jim DeMint recently brought the Senate to a halt after threatening to hold all legislation unless it was pre-approved by his office. Initially, he claimed that his reasoning for the unprecedented maneuver was strictly for the purpose of insuring that he and his staff had the chance to fully read through proposed bills before voting on them —- a technicality that seems to be lost on people like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who not long ago told the people that we needed to pass the healthcare bill so that we can see what was in it.

The move was one that did not help to counter the propaganda of Democrats who paint Republicans as “the Party no”. But in many ways Jim DeMint is on to something here.

While Democrats try to gain traction out of calling the G.O.P. “obstructionists”, DeMint takes a head on approach when addressing the word and description by explaining that there is a lot of liberal legislation that needs to be responded in the negative and that obstructing detrimental legislation is a positive thing.

But as it turns out Senator DeMint, in an interview on the daily Focal Point’ radio talk program on AFR Talk, a division of the American Family Association, revealed that there was more behind his reason for preventing the Senate to forge ahead with business as usual.

While talking about the move with host Bryan Fischer, the Senator stated “this idea that government has to do something is not a good idea.” He went on to say “the less we do, the better”.

The sentiment was further expressed in the following exchange:

FISCHER: “Do you think some kind of gridlock is possible and what do you think will happen if that ensues?”

DEMINT: “Well I had a group of businessmen tell me the other day “if you can just stop the tax increases on us and then have two years of gridlock, that would be the best thing that could happen for business because at least we would know what to expect.” Right now they don’t know what the government is going to do to them next. So this idea that government has to do something is not a good idea. So I think the less we do, the better except maybe to dismantle some of the federal programs that are making it harder for America to be competitive”.

 

In a different interview, when DeMint was asked about the issue of obstructionism he responded;

DEMINT: “The problem is secretly passing bills without reading them, without debating them, and without voting on them. Over 90% of the bills that come through the Senate are never voted on, never debated, they pass by unanimous consent. I’ve never heard one person across America want more bills to pass more quickly.”

Senator DeMint’s position may seem harsh to those who believe that the government, especially the federal government, must do more….regulate more, control more and tax and spend more, but an increasing number of Americans are coming to see that the less the federal government does, the less things get screwed up. And the fact that Jim DeMint is willing to come out of the political closet and essentially say so, is not only brave, it is commendable.

But Jim DeMint goes beyond just talking the talk. His recent efforts to stop action in the Senate demonstrate that, ironically,  he is a man of action.

As indicated by the trends being seen as we head into the homestretch of the 2010 midterm elections, most Americans might actually appreciate a government shutdown. Under the current makeup of the House, Senate and Obama Administration, it might be the only way to save some money and put an end to reckless spending and the fact that Jim DeMint seems willing to go to such lengths is encouraging.

Doing nothing may not exactly make for a very successful platform for a presidential candidate to run on but if Jim DeMint is willing to keep addressing the issue he, will certainly continue to gain favor with the conservative base of the Party and help force whomever the eventual Republican nominee for President is to at least adopt a minimalists federal platform that will give states more rights and help keep the federal government slim, trim and out the way.

Bookmark and Share

Romney and Rubio Make Republican Ripples Across the Pond

Rubio speaking at CPAC in February 2010.

Rubio speaking at CPAC in February 2010.

 Bookmark and Share  The United Kingdom pays close attention the politics of the United States and the piece offered here by the U.K.’s Telegraph, is a good indication of just how astute our conservative friends from the other side of the pond are when it comes to the existing American political atmosphere.

Mitt Romney

Some of the most notable points made clear in the article include how Marco Rubio is probably the candidate who best represents all that is turning the tide towards Republicans in 2010 and that Marco is a very likely future President. Another point mentioned is one which I always address——the tendency for the G.O.P. to select the next in line as their presidential nominee and that based upon that history, along with his endless campaigning, Mitt Romney is the candidate whom is the “likely next in line”.

It should also noted be noted that at the moment, the U.K. is ahead of the curve when it comes to the prevailing ideological winds in global politics.  Afterall they went Conservative earlier this year with the elction of Prime Minsiter David Cameron.

Click Here To See The Telegraph Article

Bookmark and Share

Santorum’s Speech to the Annual Values Voters Convention

United States Senator Rick Santorum, sponsor o...

Rick Santorum

Bookmark and Share Rick Santorum delivered a powerful speech at the annual Values Voters gathering of the Family Research Council.  He began by telling the audience that he disagreed with the so-called experts who are trying to tell Republicans to deal strictly with economic issues.  According to Santorum “the idea that values and moral issues are not part of integrated sets of issues that keep this country free and safe and prosperous is a very dangerous idea”  He added that we can’t go out on one wing of issues and expect to fly on just the wing talking about taxing and spending.   Santorum believes that at the core of all the issues is that government is taking freedom away. 

In the end Santorum layed out another very important point worth mentioning.  He warned that voters should not get down too down on Republicans after they take back either or both branches of Congress and do fail to produce dramatic change.  Santorum reminds us that on the November 3rd of 2010, Barack Obama will still be President and more than that, real change takes time.  Just as it did with Democrats who took control of Congress in 2006 but didn’t start dramatically changing things until 2008.  But Santorum punctuated his remarks by claiming that there were only three times in the past 100 years that “really big things happened”to change government…..The New Deal, The Great Society and the last two years of the Obama Administration. 

Santorum went on to explain that the key denominator in nthoise three cases wewre not simply a liberal President but were rather the  fillibuster proof margins that liberals had in Congress.  The point being that no matter what happens on November 2, 2010, republicans will not have the numbers to bring about the dramatic change that we want.  However if we remain focussed, come 2012 the numbers could be there and the opportunity to create the change we need in dramatic fashion will be in our reach.

Below you will find Santorum’s speech in its entirety;

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: