Showing posts with label Teddy Roosevelt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Teddy Roosevelt. Show all posts

Sunday, March 28, 2010

I blame Bush for Stalincare ~ By Ellis Washington

At the bottom of this column by Ellis, I included the video of the now famous words of Rep. Alcee Hastings (the disgraced former Federal Judge). This is just to emphasize the Machiavellian type of Chicago-style thugocracy that is transforming America before our eyes. This is what we are up against now. Sure, Ellis is right, it would not have happened had we not had the Bush RINOs in the White House prior to the election of our Dear Glorious Leader that we are now enduring. But, as he says below, "we are living in tyrannical times."

It is vitally important, in my own humble opinion, that Conservatives spend our time uniting patriotic Americans, and just forget about the blame-game. Let's think about the future, and not the past. Please?

Indeed, we are living in tyrannical times, and that's why I blame Bush 43 for faking like he was a Ronald Reagan conservative in 2001, all but ignoring conservatives for his first nine months in office, until 9/11, bankrupting America during his two terms as president, two ill-advised wars, demoralizing the voters with a $7 trillion prescription-drug bill, a Kennedy education bill ("No Child Left Behind"), TARP and bailing out corrupt Wall Street investment banks.

These socialist policies allowed the Marxist Barack Obama to ascend to power; a man who utterly hates America to the core and is hell-bent on seeing this country pay for all her sins by systematically deconstructing America from a republic and transforming her into a servile, socialist state.
By Ellis Washington

Posted: March 27, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010



American medicine is the best because it is private and it must stay that way.


~ Ronald Reagan

The shameless tactics of Chicago thug politics were demonstrated on March 21 where President Obama and the Democrats used every Machiavellian tactic to pass his government-controlled health-care bill by a vote of 219 to 212. The real intent of Democrats was articulated by Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., who was impeached and removed from the bench as a federal judge before being elected to the House. Before the bill was signed, Hastings said, There ain't no rules here, we're trying to accomplish something. ... When the deal goes down, all this talk about rules … we make 'em up as we go along. (See video below)

Rep. Hastings' sentiments are the deserved legacy the GOP has bequeathed to America, a legacy whose latest manifestation is Obama's $940 billion socialist health-care bill. That's why I will not join the chorus of Republicans, conservative commentators and radio talk-show hosts in blaming this all on President Obama and the Democrats. That's too easy and fails to get to the heart of the matter.

How did America devolve into making entitlements a constitutional right protected by the Supreme Court? It didn't suddenly happen on March 23, 2010, when Obama signed the health-care bill into law. Obama was unwittingly closer to the actual date that America began her tragic love affair with socialism when he said at a rally last week at George Mason University: "We have waited long enough, and in just a few days a century-long struggle will culminate in a historic vote."

What he meant by that phrase ("century-long struggle") is that socialist health care for all was envisioned as early as Theodore Roosevelt (1901-09), a Republican who left the GOP in 1912 and ran under the Bull Moose-Progressive Party, where he got 27 percent of the vote and opened the door for America's first fascist president, Woodrow Wilson (1913-21) to get elected.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com
RELATED VIDEO:
March 20, 2010 - Key House Democrat: "There Are No Rules Here ... We Make Them Up As We Go Along"


Video provided by JohnBoehner


Bookmark and Share

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Friday, March 05, 2010

Straight talk about Ron Paul and Glenn Beck ~ By Burt Prelutsky

Even though he's a Beck fan, Burt Prelutsky criticizes Glenn Beck for saying that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Burt wants good conservative Republicans to win in 2010 and 2012, but even more so, wants hard-core liberal Democrats to lose in those elections. And as to what he has to say about Ron Paul... well, I'll just let you read this column.
All I'm saying is that perhaps Beck should stop worrying so much about Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and start paying a little more attention to modern American history.


By Burt Prelutsky

Posted: March 05, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010


When I wasn't invited to address the CPAC convention, I didn't take it personally. I merely assumed they knew how much I hate flying – and, besides, I don't do well in cold weather.

But it's always nice to see so many conservatives in good spirits, especially during these hard times. Still, I have to admit I found their straw vote worrisome. My own feelings about Ron Paul as a prospective presidential candidate don't enter into it. My main concern, speaking as a conservative, is winning elections. Some Republicans love the guy, while others can't stand him. I like some of his ideas and, as with Newt Gingrich, I'd hope he'd have the ear of the next Republican in the Oval Office. But as for his being the GOP standard-bearer in 2012, forget about it.

For one thing, he'll be 77 at the time, meaning he'd be 81 at the end of his first term. As I'm also in my 70s, though just barely, I can assure you that's the time to start taking things a little easier, not the time to start running a country. For another thing, he spent tens of millions of dollars in 2008 trying for the presidential nomination and wound up garnering a tiny handful of delegates. That told me two things: one, outside of his own congressional district, he's not much of a vote-getter; and two, he's hardly the fiscal conservative he claims to be.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Bookmark and Share

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Bring our troops home, Part 2 ~ By Pat Boone

Commentary from WorldNetDaily
Pat Boone By Pat Boone Posted: November 21, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 I received an amazing response to my last column, in which I called loudly for the president – trying desperately to decide what to do in his newfound role as commander in chief – to issue the executive order to bring every last soldier in the Middle East home. By Christmas. Amazing to me, because most of the response was overwhelmingly affirmative and positive. I write for conservative readers, and most conservatives, like me, want to bring our troops home to waving flags and proclamations of victory. Yet most readers seem to agree with my loud call. What has become increasingly clear is that we won our victory in the first days of the invasion of Iraq. We hunted down and eventually executed Saddam Hussein, established that he had managed to sneak his WMDs over to Syria and out of our reach, and gave the Iraqi people a chance to create their own democracy – if they wanted it enough. We should have come home to the parades, declared "mission accomplished," and sent thousands of fighting men and women back to their families. But no. Partly in hubris, partly in a desire to "spread democracy," and mainly in determination to hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden, we got sucked into a rat hole, ambushed by amateurs with roadside bombs, and pushed into Afghanistan and Pakistan with our tanks and remote-controlled drones and flame throwers – to be confronted with scarcely trained but highly motivated locals who hid in caves and bushes on the hillsides. Locals who were in too many cases eager to strap on bombs and die, killing whomever they could. America's intent was to give the locals a chance at life, a better life, but many of these locals have been brainwashed to actually prefer death, if they can take others, even some of their own countrymen, with them. So what's to win? What is a "victory" for American troops in the Middle East? What can we accomplish that's worth the lives of even more of America's finest young? A couple more corrupt governments, maybe even severe setbacks to al-Qaida, possibly a dead Osama? [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Why 'Rogue' is a better book than 'Dreams' ~ By Jack Cashill

Commentary from WorldNetDaily
Jack CashillBy Jack Cashill Posted: November 19, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 A few weeks back, the new head of the National Endowment for the Arts, Rocco Landesman, said of Barack Obama, "This is the first president that actually writes his own books since Teddy Roosevelt and arguably the first to write them really well since Lincoln." Landesman was not alone in his praise. This month's GQ has a faux-exhaustive article on "the untold story of the first man since Teddy Roosevelt to serve as author in chief." In truth, however, if Teddy Roosevelt came back to life today, he would find that he would have much more in common with Sarah Palin than Barack Obama, both as a fellow adventurer and as a fellow writer. I am not being ironic here: Palin's new memoir, "Going Rogue," is superior to the 1995 memoir that made Obama's reputation, "Dreams From My Father." A clue as to why can be found in one choice moment from "Dreams." At the time, 1988, community organizer Obama was contemplating law school, and he announced his potential choices as "Harvard, Yale, Stanford." What makes any narrative compelling is when the protagonist confronts obstacles and overcomes them through force of will and character. But when a mediocre student with LSAT scores too humble to reveal can casually limit his law school choices to Harvard, Stanford and Yale, the reader winces. It is as if the good witch told Dorothy to click her heels together on day one and skip the damn yellow brick road. There is no drama here. In fact, Obama's career has been greased by affirmative action and its bastard offspring – "diversity" – from prep school on. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Mount Rushmore

Set within the Black Hills in the state of South Dakota is one of the most famous landmarks in the U.S.A., the Mount Rushmore National Memorial: four monumental portraits of the most famous American presidents that have been carved into the granite and symbolize a kind of spectacular tribute to democracy. -- Until now.

read more in the covertress blog | digg story, submitted to digg.com by covertress