Check out Phyllis’ speech at this year’s CPAC!
Please be a part of our Twitter chat tomorrow: Wednesday, February 27th from 3pm to 4pm EST, to oppose the Violence Against Women Act (#VAWA) and #feministpork.
Right before the VAWA vote in the Senate, the feminists had a Tweet Up that inundated Twitter with their wild assertions and false information. (Search VAWA on Twitter for examples.) After the vote, Organizing for America and several other radical liberal groups launched a nasty social media attack on the 22 GOP men who courageously voted no. VAWA will be coming up this week in the House, so we want to do the same thing the liberals did – inundate Twitter, except this time with the truth about VAWA.
Tomorrow, February 27, from 3pm-4pm EST, we will be hosting a Twitter chat to fight the ridiculous claims and lies promulgated by the feminists. We need you all adding your commentary and re-tweeting.
Please don’t feel like you need to spend time immersing yourself in this awful piece of legislation – we have a designated group of policy analysts and activists who will be tweeting facts, statistics, and solutions based on sound scholarship.
Eagle Forum’s Twitter account (@eagleforuminfo) will serve as the moderator by posting questions, re-tweeting all of the efforts, and pushing out publications regarding the issue. Below, I have included numerous Twitter handles for you to follow as well as resources to stimulate your thoughts about your personal tweets. If you have any questions, please contact: firstname.lastname@example.org.
We will be using #VAWA and #feministpork
Tweeters in D.C.:
Click here and scroll down for the handles of the 22 GOP men who voted NO in the Senate.
You might also want to follow the GOP female Senators who voted for this pork in order to ask them WHY and let them know about your dissatisfaction. (Sens. Ayotte, Collins,Fisher, Murkowski)
It’s mid October, the air is crisp, and your schedule is probably crammed with homework and midterms. We know life is busy as a student this time of year, which is why we wanted to take a minute to ask:
Have you requested an absentee ballot for the November 6th elections?
Every state is different and will have slightly different deadlines and instructions. We wanted to put this on your radar, because NOW is the time to make sure you are registered to vote and that you have requested an absentee ballot if you need one.
Take a minute today to google your Secretary of State’s website. Under the “Elections” tab, there should be instructions. You will likely need to fill out and send in a form in order to receive your absentee ballot prior to the election. Pay attention to the deadlines. The election is only 3 WEEKS AWAY!
If you need help or have questions, feel free to comment below.
I recently had the opportunity to watch Dinesh D’Souza’s documentary, 2016: Obama’s America. Expecting it to be a predictable right-wing, propaganda film attacking President Obama, I was pleasantly surprised when it proved to be highly scholarly and informative. Perhaps this explains the tremendous success the film has already experienced to date.
In fact, 2016 has grown from a one-theater showing to a nation-wide phenom. According to USAToday, it is currently playing in more than 2,000 screens and has collected $26.1 million and counting, making it the sixth-highest-grossing documentary of all time. Needless to say, the rapid success has caused a debate to erupt among critics as to whether the film is a work of propaganda or a legitimate documentary.
But one thing is sure: D’Souza’s documentary is making waves ahead of the November elections. In fact, the film must be more than mere Obama-bashing, since it is only becoming more and more popular. And after watching it myself, I can say that it was very interesting and very informative.
Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the film is the in-depth analysis of Obama’s childhood life and family background. There is so much misinformation wandering about in America about who our president is and where he came from. Amazingly, no one seems to know more than just a little bit about him. Dinesh D’Souza answered all the musings with heavily documented proof to back up his explanation. He even travelled to each place of importance in the early life of Obama.
The most powerful part of the film, for me, was the interview of Barack Obama’s half-brother, George Obama, who lives in the slums of Kenya. Here was a man who was living in conditions worse than just about anywhere you could find in America, and yet his philosophy on the world was entirely the opposite of the president’s. George takes nothing for granted and does not feel entitled to “benefits” from the government, even though he is poorer than the poorest of the poor in America. He did not begrudge his half-brother for leaving him in Kenya while Barack enjoyed the high life of President of the United States; he didn’t feel entitled to his aid. This man knew that what his country really needed was the trademark free-market capitalism of the West to raise it up. It was truly an eye-opening experience to watch that interview, and it really made an impression on me.
Interestingly enough, the whole film is in effect narrated by the autobiography of Barack Obama himself, giving the film even more credibility. And as it progressed, a troubling notion became more readily apparent than ever: the American people do not know a thing about whom our president really is, where he came from, or what he envisions for our country.
So persuasive and numerous was D’Souza’s factual support throughout the film, that by the time he made predictions as to what the next four years under Obama would look like, he had me convinced. I now know much more about Barack Obama, and this knowledge helps me see very clearly into the rationale behind his various decisions over the last four years. I feel much more informed heading into this election.
And it is much better to be informed rather than simply passionate against a certain candidate. 2016: Obama’s America made me feel the former, not the latter. Maybe that is why it is so successful among what has become more than just a Conservative or anti-Obama viewer-base.
Unfortunately, the lack of proper information is prevalent throughout the nation, affecting almost every voter. The media, both left-wing and right-wing, spouts “news” left and right, up and down, and people simply tune in to what they want to hear. Few voters are truly informed, and the ones who are, in my experience, are they who take the time to sift through the cloud of boldly-proclaimed falsities and uncover the truth about whom they are choosing to lead our nation.
This election is arguably the most significant of the last twenty years, and the least we could do as voters is make sure we know why we are voting for the candidate we select on November 6th. I highly recommend watching 2016: Obama’s America, whether you favor President Obama or not. You won’t be disappointed.
Change is brewing in Tampa, Florida. Never before have we seen such a gathering of young, conservative, well-spoken and motivated politicians lined up to deliver homerun after homerun to a joyous crowd of hope-filled Americans. The United States of America is ready to replace Barack Obama with Mitt Romney.
Artur Davis set the stakes high with a smashing success of a speech, exposing the misguided leadership of Obama and reaffirming Mitt Romney’s ability to lead our nation back to prosperity. He spoke of the failure of Obama to stand up to his empty promises:
“Do you know why so many of us believed? We led with our hearts and our dreams that we could be more inclusive than we had ever been, and no candidate had ever spoken so beautifully. But dreams meet daybreak; the jobless know what I mean. So do the families who wonder how this administration could wreck a recovery for three years and counting.”
As a former Democrat, Artur Davis spoke especially to those disillusioned by Obama: “To those Democrats and Independents whose minds are open to argument, listen closely to the Democratic Party that will gather in Charlotte and ask yourself if you hear your voice in the clamor. Ask yourself if these democrats still speak to you!” Anyone who listened to Artur Davis could relate to the feeling of abandonment felt by so many Americans towards their president. When a former Democratic congressman and avid supporter of Obama in 2008 speaks of the disillusionment felt by America towards Barack Obama, we know that things are getting serious.
And the speeches only got better. Mia Love, a rising star in the Republican Party from Utah, tore Obama apart in a thrilling discourse. Her message of independence and the American dream as directly opposed to dependence on government made the Republican message abundantly clear. She went right after President Obama, calling his America a divided one and calling him a failure.
“President Obama’s version of America is a divided one, often pitting us against each other based on income level, gender, and social status. His policies have failed us, we’re not better off than we were four years ago, and no rhetoric, bumper sticker, or Hollywood campaign ad can change that.”
Needless to say, Republicans across the country were cheering louder than ever before by the time she was done. Figures like Mia Love can mean only great things for the future of this country!
The roaring of the crowd reached new levels, however, when Ann Romney took the podium. She hammered home Romney’s incredible record of success in the face of adversity and revealed his tremendous generosity. She assured us all that “this man will not fail!” Her speech stole the hearts of everyone in the room.
But no speech was funnier, no speech was louder, no speech was more motivating, more inspirational, and more powerful on opening night than that of the keynote speaker Gov. Chris Christie. His tough-love discourse was a grand slam. He harped upon the great American values of freedom, liberty, hard work, love and respect. He slammed Obama for his failed leadership and praised Romney for his courage, respect, and successful nature.
“Our founding fathers had the wisdom to know that social acceptance and popularity are fleeting and that this country’s principles needed to be rooted in strengths greater than the passions and emotions of the times. But our leaders today have decided it’s more important to be popular, to say and do what is easy, to say yes rather than to say no, when no is what is required.”
Gov. Christie reminded us that it is time to get serious; time to get real. That we live in the greatest country in the world but must have a real leader and not a weak one. A leader who will face challenges head-on and not flee from them. He appealed to the tremendous sacrifices made by previous generations to preserve our freedom, and called upon Americans to do the same.
“I think tonight of the greatest generation, I look back and marvel at their courage overcoming the great depression, fighting Nazi tyranny, standing up for freedom around the world. Well, now it’s our time to answer history’s call, for make no mistake, every generation will be judged and so will we. What will our children and grandchildren say of us? Will they say we buried our heads in the sand, we suaged ourselves with the creature comforts we’ve acquired, that our problems were too big and we were too small, that someone else should make a difference because we can’t? Or will they say of us, that we stood up and made the tough choices that needed to be made to preserve our way of life?”
After his speech ended the night’s activities, Republicans left the room with Christie’s message ringing in their ears: “We have never been victims of destiny. We have always been the masters of our own!”
What must the Democrats be thinking? How can they possibly come up with as great a show as the RNC has put on thus far? What kind of message could they possibly convey to best ours? But this was just the beginning!
Obama’s failed leadership was a recurrent theme on Day 2. Condoleezza Rice delivered a stunning speech which exposed the Obama’s foreign policy incompetence and assured us that Mitt Romney was a more than capable leader for the many challenges facing American security. Her question, “Where does America stand?” highlighted the importance of having a strong leader.
“My fellow Americans, we do not have a choice. We cannot be reluctant to lead and you cannot lead from behind.”
She addressed education, proclaiming that “We need to give parents greater choice, particularly poor parents whose kids, very often minorities, are trapped in failing neighborhood schools. This is the civil rights issue of our day.” As with all the speakers, she appealed to a prevailing hope, reminding us of how our greatness is not to be taken for granted.
“Whenever you find yourself doubting us, just think about all those times that America made the impossible seem inevitable in retrospect. Our revolutionary founding against the greatest military power of the time, a civil war, brother against brother, hundreds of thousands dead on both sides, but we emerged a more perfect union. A second founding when impatient patriots were determined to overcome the birth defect of slavery and the scourge of segregation. A long struggle against communism with the Soviet Union eventually in collapse and Europe whole, free, and at peace. And in the aftermath of 9/11, the willingness to take really hard, hard decisions that secured us and prevented the follow-on attack that everybody thought preordained.”
Her moving speech was yet another testament to the positive future promised by Republican political figures. Americans need to hear her words and understand the threats to our nation that must be dealt with soon by an effective leader, Mitt Romney.
Finally, vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan took the stage. His reception was the best yet and his speech did not disappoint. After graciously accepting his nomination, he spent the next thirty-five minutes blasting Obama’s many failures and promising that he and Mitt Romney would lead the turnaround America needs. He promised fiscal responsibility, economic recovery, honest government, and the return to American values. His most impressive accomplishment during those 35+ minutes was to completely tear apart Obama and leave nothing left.
“I have never seen opponents so silent about their record and so desperate to keep their power! They’ve run out of ideas. Their moment came and went; fear and division are all they’ve got left.”
Obama rode his message of hope and change all the way to the white house, but now that three plus years have passed, he has nothing left. Republicans are the ones who hold optimism; Republicans are the ones who have positive solutions; Republicans are the ones who hold the key to our future!
Paul Ryan was the capstone of a long lineup of young, competent, Conservative speakers who represent the face of this country’s future; speakers of the likes of Gov. Martinez, Gov. Walker, Sen. Portman, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Janine Turner, Mike Huckabee, and Sen. Rand Paul. Paul Ryan led the way in a relentless attack on Obama’s utter failure to lead this country. Ryan, and the rest of the speakers, are not like past Republicans who were afraid to attack, afraid to stand up for what they believe. To the Democrats’ dismay, they find themselves on the receiving end of a strong Republican offensive that is making them so desperate that they don’t know what to do. All they can do is point their finger and say, “Liar!”
I sincerely hope that Americans take Artur Davis’s advice and watch the DNC, because there is no way that they can come up with so many excellent speakers of diverse backgrounds who are united for a common cause under the American flag. And what could the Dem’s possibly talk about in their convention? A flourishing economy? One wonders which they will do more often; attack Romney or blame Bush for anything and everything. Between the two parties, which represents the people, the American dream, strength, leadership, hope, progress, success, religion and patriotism?
Regardless of the outcome in November, Republicans should feel very good about our future. And the bright future ahead of us can begin as early as this November with an election victory by Mitt Romney.
On August 22nd it was revealed that the Obama campaign spent over $500G of stimulus money on an ad blitz as the November elections approach. Am I the only one annoyed by this?
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann featured the Obama green-job ads during their programs’ commercial breaks. My question is: why is a news source featuring campaign ads for one candidate but not the other? Moreover, why is a news source featuring them at all? Media doesn’t get more outspokenly biased than that.
Media bias aside, I find it very irresponsible that the Obama administration is spending stimulus money on their campaign ads. Not their own money; stimulus money. Money that is already set aside for other purposes, namely to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Surely President Obama cares more about helping the economy and the people he serves than working on his reelection bid?
It would be one thing if the campaign ads were to have a major impact on the election results. One could say something along the lines of: by ensuring that he gets reelected, President Obama will have more time to help the economy, thus the money was well-spent. Unfortunately, the ads are just that, ads, and the target audience of MSNBC viewers is not what you might call a Romney-Ryan powerhouse.
Speaking of Team Romney, President Obama admitted in a nice basketball analogy that he is feeling the pressure:
Perhaps this is why Obama has decided to spend a nice chunk of stimulus money on campaign ads.
In fact, polls in the all-important swing states are beginning to surge towards Romney. Ohio is barely holding on to Obama’s lead after his recent visit, while Florida and Wisconsin have shifted towards Mitt Romney. And, though one can never place too much weight on polls, this University of Colorado election prediction model has selected Romney to be the ultimate winner, through a process that has correctly predicted all elections since 1980.
I applaud Obama’s aggressive campaigning strategy; if done with proper moderation, it can be quite effective. However, spending stimulus money for these ends is absolutely not appropriate.
This is especially true when considering that the green job training program heralded in the ads has yielded zero newly created jobs.
For a president who puts so much emphasis on the economy and job creation for his election bid, the least he could do is spend pre-assigned stimulus money as planned. Of course, this is minor in comparison to the wasteful spending of the president’s signature bill, Obamacare. Hopefully the American people see through the wasteful spending and elect a more fiscally responsible candidate to lead our country.
France is planning a huge rate increase for taxes on the rich. Francois Hollande, the self-proclaimed Socialist president of France, intends to hit citizens making more than $1.2 million per year with a monster 75 percent tax rate, a substantial increase from the outlandish 48 percent already in place. Are we going to see a miraculous turnaround in the French economy? I think not. Is this tax meaningful for Americans? Absolutely.
The first question to answer is: why? Why is President Hollande so keen on implementing his ridiculous tax rate on the wealthy? Even his former economic advisor, Elie Choen, stated:
“From a strictly economic point of view, I wouldn’t recommend these policies.”
Well, that much is clear; a tax like that on the wealthy would stomp out with a vengeance whatever life is left in the struggling French economy. The wealthy create jobs, that is the simple truth of free-market economics. With no one having enough money to invest in business, the free-market system collapses entirely. The government would like us to believe that they can take the money from the wealthy and create jobs instead, except this is not free-market economics; this is a government monopoly bordering on Socialism…exactly what a Socialist president would want.
If I were a wealthy Frenchman, I would pack my bags and get out of there while I still have my money. And sure enough, many targeted citizens have begun their exodus. With the wealthy members of society gone, who will create jobs? How will the free-market operate? It won’t.
Of course, President Hollande is aware of the effects such an exodus will have on the economy. But Socialism and Capitalism are competing ideologies. He is implementing this tax for more than just economic reasons (or perhaps exclusively for non-economic reasons); he wants to implement “structural reform.”
Well, we all know how such Socialist reforms worked out in the numerous examples of the twentieth century. But we Americans can’t simply sit here and watch the fireworks of France’s complete internal combustion. No, we must work to make sure we don’t follow the same path of economic failure.
President Obama has similar Socialist tax ideas, that of his Affordable Care Act coming first to mind. He plans on increasing taxes for the rich, while attacking Romney for decreasing taxes. Obama stated that:
“They have tried to sell us this trickle-down, tax-cut fairy dust before. And guess what? It does not work. It didn’t work then, it won’t work now. It’s not a plan to create jobs, it’s not a plan to reduce our deficit, and it is not a plan to move our economy forward.”
On the contrary, reducing taxes on the wealthy means they have more money to invest in the economy, thus creating more jobs with efficiency and proven effectiveness. The creation of jobs will make everyone better off and move the economy forward, and President Obama is certainly not one to talk about reducing the deficit.
Just like President Hollande, Obama would like the government to take control of creating jobs. However, this is not Capitalism but rather Socialism. Free-market economics requires limited government involvement; a government monopoly doesn’t fit. Look at it another way: Obama/Hollande would prefer to bring down the wealthy to the level of the poor for the sake of equality under government dependence, while Romney/Capitalists intend to raise up the poor to wealthier levels. Which one makes for a more vibrant, free, and successful economy, a more powerful nation which rewards and does not punish success, and an America of which we can be truly proud?
In case all the historical trials of Capitalism vs. Socialism aren’t proof of which ideology works better, let us follow the events in France and see if things work out. Then again, we need hardly wait when even her own economic advisors admit it is a tax plan that will doom the economy. Americans are consistently faced with similar Socialist approaches from the Liberal government and ought to continue to learn from the mistakes of Europe, as we have done for over 230 years.
Scrolling through headlines on TheBlaze, I came across what is possibly one of the most ridiculous campaign ads I’ve seen since I became interested in politics four years ago. Put out by the Obama campaign, the ad features a woman named “Jenni” who “has never felt this way before” and believes “it’s a scary time to be a woman” because Mitt Romney “opposes requiring insurance coverage for contraception,” “would outlaw all abortion,” and would “overturn Roe v. Wade” (actually, the Supreme Court could only do that…). Apparently, the Republican candidate’s pro-life stance makes him “so out of touch.”
Back the campaign train up a little bit. It’s a scary time to be a woman because the candidate who may become the next President of the United States is pro-life and thinks you should pay for your own contraceptives? The Obama camp has stooped to a new and just plain laughable low in trying to reinvigorate the originally fabricated “war on women.”
I’m not sure what disgusts me more—the Obama camp’s glaring attempt to victimize all women who want insurance-provider funded sex-lives, the attempt to create a gender war that isn’t there, or the absurdity of the selfish statement that “it’s a scary time to be a woman” because of Mitt Romney’s stance on abortion.
“It’s a scary time to be a woman,” says “Jenni” of the Obama ad. I think Jenni—and the Obama campaign—need to wake up, stop victimizing all women, pay for their own contraceptives, and not expect pro-life Americans to be “cool” with funding abortion with our tax dollars. Grown American women really have no excuse to be afraid.
It’s a scary time to be an unborn child. We have a President who twice voted against a partial birth abortion ban, and who stated that he wouldn’t want his daughters to be “punished with a baby.” We have an administration that dished out several million dollars in federal funding to Planned Parenthood branches in Tennessee, New Jersey and North Carolina when those states voted to defund Planned Parenthood of federal money.
It’s a scary time to be an unborn baby girl. Especially when those federally funded Planned Parenthood branches condone and counsel on sex-selective abortion.
Liberals cry for “women’s rights!” and for “a woman’s right to choose!” constantly. But under Obamacare, pro-life women don’t get to choose whether to support abortion or not, because insurance providers including religious institutions will be forced to fund practices against religious conscience. Obama and liberal politicians have already made that choice for us.
Jenni might be right—that it’s a scary time to be a woman—but for the wrong reasons. It’s a scary time to be a woman in a society that increasingly views women as objects for sexual gratification.
It’s a scary time to be a woman when those that supposedly so strongly support “women’s health” are the same groups that profit from emotionally scarring and life-changing procedures like abortions. I can’t count how many times I’ve seen an ad for Planned Parenthood in my school newspaper, entreating college students to “have a happy sex life” thanks to Planned Parenthood’s available contraceptive options. In a sick and twisted model of business, Planned Parenthood promotes promiscuity which inevitably leads to unwanted pregnancies, resulting in millions of abortions—and profits for Planned Parenthood—a year.
“Jenni” is afraid because she may have to pay for her own birth control and be told she’s not allowed to kill her unborn child. But she doesn’t seem afraid of the actual act of abortion, nor is she afraid of the repercussions she could be subject to. The ad doesn’t mention the two lives that were lost just recently when a young woman died after an abortion procedure. Jenni should be much more afraid of being exploited by the practices of Planned Parenthood than she should be of Mitt Romney’s pro-life stance.
This ad’s depiction of Romney is quite impressive to me, and actually reaffirms my support for him. But the ad is even more so a testament to the miniscule value that the Obama administration and most liberals give life itself. The claim that “it’s a scary time to be a woman” is selfish when you think about the baby girls who never have the chance to become women because of the mother’s decision for abortion rather than life.
It’s a scary time to be a woman if you find it necessary to paint yourself as the victim of individuals and candidates who believe it’s deplorable to force insurance providers to pay for procedures against their beliefs, and who believe that life is sacred, not something to be thrown away for convenience.
I’m a woman, but not a victim. President Obama, this ad doesn’t speak for me, or any other American woman that understands the definition of personal responsibility and values life.
Also posted on TheCollegeConservative.
The Aurora, CO shooting was a very, very tragic event. My thoughts and prayers go out to all of the victims and the perpetrator and to their families and friends. Like with most things in America, whether it be a tragedy or a triumph, a political issue emerges which could have real effects on our future lives as American citizens.
The gun control debate has, quite predictably, heated up once again since the shootings, and it is an issue worth discussing. The Liberals have traditionally sponsored stricter gun laws to try and prohibit citizens from owning firearms, whereas Conservatives have preferred to uphold the Second Amendment rights of the people and retain the freedom to keep and bear arms.
There is no doubt that both opinions have the same end result in mind: preventing such tragedies from ever happening again. However, one method must be better than the other, since they are directly opposed by definition.
With stricter gun control, according to the Democrats, murderous minds such as that of James Holmes would not be able to obtain the weapon of the crime in the first place. Essentially: the fewer weapons, the lower crime rate. Democrats believe that there is no good reason any upstanding citizen should need a firearm, and so they don’t see what people have to lose by such laws.
Republicans argue that, realistically, criminals will be able to get their hands on some sort of weapon regardless of the law and will only become emboldened by the knowledge that potential victims are definitely not carrying weapons of their own. They believe in upholding the Second Amendment to the Constitution not only for the sake of doing so, but also because there are good reasons for upstanding citizens to own firearms.
Both ideas could conceivably be in the right based on the effectiveness of the proposed laws, but recent history tells a more one-sided story. Emily Miller of the Washington Times writes:
“The most recent FBI figures show just 358 of the 8,775 murders by firearm in 2010 involved rifles of any type. By comparison, 745 people were beaten to death with only hands that year, but no one has called for outlawing fists.”
This came after gun laws had been relaxed under the Bush administration. In fact, US gun ownership is at its highest level ever, but crime is way down. Clearly there is not a direct correlation to gun ownership and crime as the Democrats would have us believe. After all, guns don’t kill people; people kill people.
And this is where the Democrats’ stance runs into trouble. They don’t account for the other ramifications of taking away the citizens’ rights to bear firearms. The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Why was this considered so important to the founding fathers? More impressively, why was it the second of the original ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, taking priority over such amendments as those guaranteeing due process of law for every citizen (V), unreasonable searches and the right to privacy (IV), and states’ rights (X)?
The loss of citizens’ right to bear arms means vulnerability to government oppression. The founding fathers were determined not to let this happen to the American people because they saw the fearful truth of this claim. Many examples in history have proven these great American figures right. In European history, since the invention of firearms, governments have been able to exert impressive levels of control over their citizens due to their inability to meaningfully fight back. The most immediate examples that pop to mind are the regimes of Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin, who spent a good deal of resources confiscating and preventing the sale of firearms before trying to do any of the oppressive policies that forever etched their names in history’s book of villains. They knew that they could not be effective against a people who had weapons of their own, and it makes perfect sense.
No, we are not about to be launched into an all-out dictatorship, but who knows what may happen sometime down the road in America’s history. We need this Amendment for the sake of deterring any such opportunity of oppression from reaching fruition.
To further solidify Conservatives’ support of the Second Amendment, suffice it to say that the United Nations is avidly opposed to it. The Arms Trade Treaty, which was framed by countries hostile to our interests, is nearly ready to be voted upon, and if passed, will launch perpetual attacks on the Amendment. If our enemies support gun control, then I do not.
At the end of the day, Americans must ask themselves: How is society safer when the only people with firearms are criminals and government agents? Criminals are obviously a danger to society, but government agents can either be a great source of protection or a terrible source of oppression. The whole point of the Second Amendment is to avoid the latter case from happening, and it is these principles of American freedom against government oppression that make our nation truly great. We cannot afford to forget this.
Perhaps some lives could have been saved if at least one of the victims of the CO shootings had a gun and stopped the shooter before he killed all twelve people and injured dozens more. Perhaps he wouldn’t have even attacked those people in such a brutal manner, since it is much harder to attack an armed enemy. We’ll never truly know for sure but it certainly makes sense. However, this is more than a question of personal security, this is also a question of preserving the defining aspects of American freedom.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution is not an outdated statement which must be repealed to fit our “post-modern” society; on the contrary, it is a statement which must be upheld in order to deter both criminal activity and government tyranny.
President Barack Obama has been on a tax talk binge the past couple of weeks. Two weeks ago he delivered a statement in the White House with what were described as working-class or middle-class Americans. It is hard for me to believe that working-class Americans have the time to take off of work to stand behind the President to make a point. But hey, I am all about theatrics!
In his statement President Obama called for an extension of the Bush tax cuts on people making less than $250,000. Hooray tax cuts, wait hold up! I’m sorry I could not hear your great news Obama over all the noise of the taxes from the Affordable Care Act. On January 1, 2013, every American can expect to see higher taxes totaling somewhere to the tune of $500 billion. Yeah that is a b in front of that illion. Applaud Obama for calling for an extension of some of the Bush tax cuts. It is something. But what about the expiration of the payroll tax cut? Again, what about the TAX that is ObamaCare? Heritage Foundation has done a fantastic job researching, calculating, and exposing what has come to be known as Taxmageddon.
FED Chairman Ben Bernanke warned Congress it was heading for a “fiscal cliff”. Bernanke cautions that any financial recovery that has taken place would be all for naught if Congress does not take action. The tax issue continues to be a partisan issue, with Obama stating that he would veto any Republican tax bill if it reached his desk. Needless to say, a stalemate in Congress is not going to help any American regardless of income level.
My favorite thing about the tax debate are the numbers that get thrown around. John Kyl (AZ) claims that, “The proposed tax increase on 53% of all flow-through business income would be especially harmful to small businesses.” On the other hand Obama claims under his proposal that 97% of small business owners would benefit from lower tax rates. Where do they get these numbers? They very well could be accurate, but the claims are contrary so it does not really make sense. Pick a number, throw it at me, and tell me how bad or good it is, then expect everyone to believe it. Gotcha! Anyway you look at it, Congress needs to take action or Taxmageddon could have many unknown consequences.
That is just a brief overview of the situation that has been unfolding. I could go further but I am no expert, so I will lead you to the in depth research. The Heritage Foundation has created an interactive map that breaks down the tax increases by state and even by district. I highly recommend you check it out to see how your district will be affected. Heritage also did great work with info-graphics and one-pagers. Be sure to check out all of their work here!