And then there is also the problem of what the Obama administration will do from now until his term ends. You never know how he might use regulatory agencies like the EPA to advance any agenda that he can't get through Congress. Or, he might just decide to allow the Federal Reserve to start printing money so that he can monetize our national debt. Oh, wait, he's already getting ready to do that. And as Michelle Malkin discusses in the video below, timing is everything:
Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k
The problem is, the timing of the debt monetization and devaluing our currency is going to cause some big problems for most Americans, in the form of inflation. When the price of groceries and gas for our cars start to spiral out of control, Americans are going to become very unhappy. Of course, back in 1980, when we had out of control inflation, it worked out very well for the country, as we were able to make Jimmy Carter a one term President, and elect President Ronald Reagan. And possibly, it could be a good thing for us again in 2012, when we elect Sarah Palin.
However, it could also be a very bad thing to live through between now and November of 2012. Umm, I'm thinking something like the end of the Weimar Republic in 1933. I can just see President Obama using his state-run propaganda machine, otherwise known as the mainstream media, in the summer of 2012, telling the American people that it is all the fault of the Republican-lead House for not passing legislation to help out the poor people who are by then rioting in the streets. And you have already seen it in the last election that recently fired many Democrats. I rarely went a day without hearing Obama and the Democrats talking about how the Republicans were responsible for not getting things done (that the American people didn't even want!).
But, it isn't rocket-science to comprehend how public disorder, or rioting, could change things. Would the Republicans stick to fiscal Conservatism and the Constitution if they are being blamed for an economic collapse?
Timing is everything. Just sayin'...
I could go on and on, but, in the end, what the midterm elections were really all about was freedom. Clearly, though I doubt most people realize it, freedom is what underlies most of the economic problems that dominate the daily news. And if a staunch Marxist is allowed to hold the reins of power much longer, Americans might just lose forever what's left of their rapidly shrinking supply of that most precious of all commodities.Beautiful, liberty-protecting gridlock
That said, Mitch McConnell is right. Let's all make a commitment to bring an end to the hope-and-change, fundamental-transformation-of-America policies of Chairman Obama in 2012.
By Robert Ringer
November 12, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
The biggest story about the midterm elections is one that seems to have escaped most conservatives, to wit:
While it's true that slightly more than half of those who voted sent a signal to Washington that they want government to drastically decrease spending, taxes and regulation, the painful reality is that slightly less than half of the voters cast their ballots in favor of Democratic candidates who, with just a few notable exceptions, want to increase spending, taxes and regulation.
I would thus caution overly exuberant Republicans that reports of the death of the progressive movement in this country have been grossly exaggerated. Many Republican victories, such as John Kasich's win over George Strickland and Pat Toomey's victory over Joe Sestak, were by razor-thin margins. Even where a race was won by as much as 15 points, that still translated into more than 40 percent of the voters giving their stamp of approval to BHO's ultra-progressive agenda.
So, what does this all mean? First, and most obvious, it means that if those people (especially the shameless swing voters, most of whom are driven by that great human defect known as instant gratification) who voted for winning Republican candidates are disappointed by what happens in Washington over the next two years, many of them might very well vote for the hope-and-change stuff again in 2012. Hmm … seems I once read something about what happens to those who do not remember the lessons of history.
I get concerned whenever I hear media talking heads blather about the need for the two parties to "come together" and show a willingness to compromise so they can "get something done." Talk about not getting it. The true tea partiers don't want Republicans to "come together" with their Democratic counterparts who want bigger government, more spending, more taxes more regulation – and less liberty.
They don't want the people they just voted into office to slow the growth of government spending; they want government spending drastically cut. They don't want the "Bush tax cuts" extended; they want more tax cuts. They don't want closer oversight of the EPA; they want the EPA defunded – or, better yet, eliminated. No need to go on; you get the idea.
But won't this kind of attitude on the part of Republicans cause gridlock? Yes! It will cause beautiful, progressive-stifling, liberty-protecting gridlock. Those who propelled tea-party candidates into office don't want the government to "get something done" if that means enacting more laws and finding new and more devious ways to increase taxes (e.g., cap-and-trade and huge increases in the money supply).
The only thing they want politicians to do is repeal all unconstitutional laws already on the books, get out of the way of entrepreneurs and the private sector, and focus on protecting the lives and property of all U.S. citizens. Whether a citizen happens to be "rich" or "poor" is irrelevant – and, quite frankly, none of the government's business. While the concern of some politicians for the perceived hardship of any particular group may make for an interesting sociological or philosophical discussion, it does not give them the right to forcibly redistribute the assets of others.
Keeping all this in mind, I have to give credit to establishment Republican Mitch McConnell, who demonstrated that he understood perfectly the message of the electorate when he said that his party's No. 1 objective is to make Barack Obama a one-term president. This, of course, brought about feigned indignation from the left.
But McConnell stuck to his guns in a speech to a Heritage Foundation audience when he said, "… if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill, to end the bailouts, cut spending and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do all these things is to put someone in the White House who won't veto any of these things."
Why in the world wouldn't your No. 1 objective be to get rid of the head honcho who's calling the progressive shots from the White House? It's an over-arching objective that should begin immediately and continue, in full-court-press fashion, over the next two years.
READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com
Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!