Laura Ingraham Was Right - Shut Down The Republican Party

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, & government to gain ground."  Thomas Jefferson in 1788

 

"We're more than 50% socialist.  And I don't think we're getting our money's worth."  Professor Friedman in 1996

 

  click on graph to enlarge

 

The pre Hurricane Sandy posting re the first Third Party Debate got the juices flowing of many people in the readership.  Click on Third Party Debate Shows We Have More Than Two Choices to read five comments I published – there were many more sent to me privately.  Many think we need a third party, others think we shouldn't have any parties @ all, others think a third party would ruin their lives right now in that BO will win the election if a third party candidate siphons votes from Mitt, & some merely identified that we are in the apathy to dependence stage of Death of Democracy no matter who wins the election.  I pick #s 1 & 4.

 

Now I have come to think of our current system being comprised of one Big Government Party (countries with one party are usually called socialist, communist, or fascist) with Democrat & Republican wings.  To me we have a third party already – the Tea Party which has held our country & its founding principles together since 2009 better than anything else I can think of.

 

For those who are scared of BO winning a second term please remember Laura Ingraham's words in September to the GOP - "If you can't beat Barack Obama with this record, then shut down the party. Shut it down. Start new, with new people."  Laura referred to this election as a "gimmee election" & the fact that it is not by most accounts tells you there is something else @ play here & it is not jobs, jobs, jobs.  Just look @ the above graph for proof of that.  The unemployment rate has never been lower than when BO took office – not even one month & he is not only still in the game, he very well might win reelection.

 

Laura's thought really conveys a much deeper message that goes far beyond the election of 2012.  How has America come to the point where a failed president by any historic measure is even competitive for reelection let alone not being shellacked?  We have to face what else is in play & it is becoming clearer all the time.  Even if Mitt wins this time the stage is (has been) set for future Republican candidates to keep playing the Democrat government-dependent giveaway game which is what it takes these days to be competitive in an election as the older generations fade away being replaced by government-educated people who were never taught our heritage of limited government, personal responsibility, & free enterprise.  How else do you explain a "gimmee election" being turned into a cliffhanger?  Doesn't this really say America lost – the exact date just has not been determined?

 

After President Reagan's example the Republican Party has proven since 1988 to not be the answer – finding a new party with leaders like Jim DeMint & Rand Paul is the answer.  Should Mitt win a squeaker he will just get us in deeper & keep the slide toward socialism going to set up the 2016 election for another anti-American candidate – & I have one in mind over @ State.

 

A more solid footing is to vote for congressmen & senators who will make the difference for our country – people who will tie the hands of either BO or Mitt.

 

Readers know I do not want BO to win reelection for reasons & problems documented on this blog since BO first became a national figure. 

 

My problem with Mitt is that he signed a state government healthcare law that ObamaCare is modeled after & he still cites parts of ObamaCare he likes even as he says he will repeal it (Just where do you expect this line of thinking to lead?), wants to means test Social Security benefits as further evidence he too is like BO wanting millionaires & billionaires to pay their fair share of taxes as if they don't already, takes the same position as BO on student loans, continued a course already set re a Massachusetts green-energy fund - a cap-&-trade program designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions & provide subsidies to companies like BO did for Solyndra, pressed as governor for waivers in the federal welfare program re what counted as work, & has flip flopped over the past eighteen years on virtually every other issue.

 

We all know that part of BO's class warfare pertains to increasing taxes on singles making over $200,000 per year & couples making over $250,000 per year.  What the Tax Policy Center (TPC) has been able to determine from Mitt's plan re taxes & class warfare is that Mitt's thresholds are even lower.  Mitt would eliminate tax on long-term capital gains, dividends, and interest income only for married couples filing jointly with income under $200,000 per year ($100,000 for single filers and $150,000 for heads of household).  Investment income above these thresholds for Mitt's plan would be taxed @ current statutory rates – up to 15 percent for long-term gains and qualified dividends and as high as 35 percent on other dividends and interest income.  How does either Mitt's plan or BO's plan increase economic growth by treating investment income this way?

 

Mitt loves to say he would declare China a currency manipulator on day 1 of his presidency but will not take the position to abolish the Federal Reserve System that was created by an act of Congress for the purpose of regulating the U.S. monetary & banking system thereby making the Fed the largest currency manipulator in the world. 

 

Mitt missed a tremendous chance to make a difference for America when he made the non-gaffe that "47% of the people will vote for BO (in Mitt's case) no matter what...these people are dependent on government, believe they are victims entitled to government handouts, & pay no income tax."  After saying he would stick with this position for about a day Mitt walked it back & has tried to drop it ever since.  I would be his biggest backer if Mitt would have tried to reach people in this 47% category to convince them that their current government dependent mindset needs to be changed or their futures become even bleaker. This will require the re-learning of taking care of ourselves since each of us can only count on ourselves anyway.  What a difference if Mitt had reached 10% of the 47% – that alone would have started to effect the mindset change America needs.

 

The mot serious problem pertains to Mitt not following up in the foreign policy debate re the murders of four Americans in the consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.  After the moderator helped BO with erroneous info on this subject in the second debate Mitt had plenty of opportunities @ the next debate devoted strictly to foreign affairs to set the Libyan question straight.  Instead Mitt became gun-shy as he played it safe for 90 minutes taking every chance he got to say there was no difference between him & BO on foreign policy.  The tragedy is that the reason for the deaths of four Americans will now likely never be known as the matter disappears forever.  Since the hostile anti-American media has barely brought this issue up Mitt was the only one who could have raised the public awareness of these deaths but chose not to for political reasons such as he wanted to appear normal to some group of voters.  By not making it an issue Mitt diminished his leadership as well as the four lives lost.

 

BO's record of devastation is clear for all to see.  Mitt's partial record is summarized above.  Both show the need for a viable third-party choice.

 

All things considered I would rather have all of the House & Senate candidates favorably highlighted on RTE elected or returned to office than root for BO or Mitt to win. 

 

Oh how far we have fallen from the Constitution & our founding principles.