SEARCH

Custom Search
Showing posts with label famous people. Show all posts
Showing posts with label famous people. Show all posts

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Dinesh D'Souza on Why Obama Wants to Destroy America




"If you look at Obama's domestic and foreign policies, they are linked. Domestically, he is expanding the power of the state at home, and internationally he is shrinking the power of the United States. So it's a scissors motion in which he is expanding state power locally and reducing America's power in the world. Why would Obama support oil drilling abroad, but not here?...

What he's attempting is global energy redistribution. He's trying to make sure that the previously colonized countries have more energy so they can grow faster, at the expense of what he sees as the colonizer, which is the U.S. Why is Obama promiscuously spending money as if the deficit didn't matter? It's very obvious that if the Republicans didn't have Congress he would have spent even more. He's using debt as a way of settling America's colonial debt. In other words, the idea here is that America owes the world trillions of dollars. Now, Obama knows that he couldn't possibly propose such a foreign aid program - even Democrats wouldn't vote for that much giveaway. But think about how debt achieves the same result.

If our children and grandchildren are saddled with trillions of dollars of debt, they'll have to pay it back, and to whom? Well, a good deal of that debt is owned by the Kuwaitis, the Saudis, and the Chinese. Debt becomes a form of global wealth redistribution.... He's trying to restore the world before colonialism. In the year 1500 there were many great powers: China, India, the Arab-Islamic world, the civilizations of the Americas. It was a multi-polar world without any one superpower like America. I believe Obama wants us to go back to that world.... Does America want to go this way? Obama is not a traditional Democrat. If you asked Bill Clinton or John Kerry or Al Gore if they think it's a good thing for America to be number one in the world, they would say 'Sure, of course it is!' I think for Obama, it would be perfectly okay for America to be number eighteen, or sixty-four, in the world. Just one normal country like Finland or Greece or Somalia at the great table of nations. That is Obama's goal.

It isn't just that he hates America. He is looking at America through global eyes. What he's trying to do is right the ship of the world that he thinks has been upside down for five hundred years, ever since Columbus set out. This age of European superiority and now American superiority - Obama would like to see that end.

Imagine if one man could do that in eight years. At the end of eight years of President Obama, America would be a lot poorer, America would be a lot weaker, America would cease to be a special country, the American passport would have no greater worth around the world than any other passport, American currency wouldn't be anything special, and probably a lot of Americans would despise Obama. But at that point, he wouldn't really care.... Obama's strategy is the opposite of Reagan's. Reagan believed in 'peace through strength.' Obama believes in 'peace through weakness.'"

-Dinesh D'Souza, President of King's College and author of "Obama's America: Unmaking the American Dream" and "The Roots of Obama's Rage"

Monday, September 17, 2012

Saturday, July 7, 2012

Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death!


“THIS IS THE MOST LIBERTARIAN GENERATION THAT’S EVER EXISTED”

Will public disgust with creeping government drive more people than ever toward limited government principles? A very good and interesting story from Illinois’ The Telegraphabout how the movement Ron Paul ignited now also correlates with public attitudes and national trends:

To begin: This is not a story about Ron Paul.

Not exactly, anyway. And yet to get where we want to go we will start at OPA!, a Greek restaurant on the edge of town where Clark County Republicans and tea party conservatives gathered on Nevada primary night for what looked undeniably like a Ron Paul rally.

In one corner was Cindy Lake, the acting chair of the Clark County Republican Party and a delegate to this summer’s Republican National Convention. A self-described “libertarian Republican constitutional conservative,” Lake became a Paul convert in 2007 after she heard him advocate for something she passionately supports: the freedom to buy raw milk.

Nearby stood Megan Heryet, celebrating her GOP primary victory in a state Assembly race. Heryet, a real estate agent, substitute teacher and mom, is hardly a Paul fanatic. But she did back him in Nevada’s caucuses earlier this year, primarily because she is a big proponent of being free to make decisions such as choosing to give birth to her second child at home instead of a hospital. “It’s about being left alone,” she said.

And there were the Bunce brothers, Richard and Carl, who marshaled a four-year “Paulist” takeover of the Nevada Republican Party. The tax system is their biggest irritation. “This is the land of the free,” said Carl. “How free are we when we’ve got a government that can choose how much money we keep in our paycheck?”

But we promised this wouldn’t be about Ron Paul and, in fact, it really isn’t. Rather it’s about unpasteurized milk and home births and taxes and, yes, freedom.

Something’s going on in America this election year: a renaissance of an ideal as old as the nation itself – that live-and-let-live, get-out-of-my-business, individualism vs. paternalism dogma that is the hallmark of libertarianism.

Paul, the Texas congressman and GOP presidential hopeful who champions small government and individual liberty, is one manifestation of it. We saw that with his rising popularity during the Republican presidential primary season and, now, the recent “takeovers” of political conventions in Nevada, Minnesota, Maine, Louisiana and elsewhere that will result in a sizable faction of Paul delegates at the GOP convention come August…

But what looms are far larger questions about whether an America fed up with government bans and government bailouts – with government, period – is seeing a return to its libertarian roots. And, if so, what that might mean in a potentially close presidential race and long after election 2012 is a mere memory.

“There’s this kind of growing distrust of the institutions of government, and so it leads folks to step back and say, ‘Well if they’re not working, then we ought to have less of them in our lives,”‘ said Wayne Lesperance, director of tmw Hampshire.

Paul’s libertarian message joins people “who probably under any other circumstances would not see the world the same way and gets them politically involved,” Lesperance said. “It is a challenge for the Republicans to wrap their arms around this and harness this in a way that gets them an electoral victory.”

"Regardless of popular belief, Romney has yet to actually clinch

This will all be hotly debated this week as thousands converge on the Las Vegas Strip for a libertarian fete called FreedomFest. U.S. Sen. Rand Paul – Ron’s son and the future hope of many limited-government enthusiasts – will speak, along with a slew of libertarian-leaning politicians, scholars, economists and entrepreneurs, from Whole Foods CEO John Mackey and publisher Steve Forbes to Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party’s nominee for president.

When the festival first began in 2002, some 850 people attended. Last year, there were 2,400. Festival founder and economist Mark Skousen will tell you this is a sign, albeit a small one, that libertarianism – or something an awful lot like it – is surging.

“It is a rebirth,” said Skousen, and a reaction to a feeling shared by many that America has moved too far afield from its founding principles. “This country was established for the very thing that we’re fighting right now: excessive government control of our lives. In today’s world everything is either prohibited or mandated. … You have to have medical insurance. You have to wear a seat belt. … They have to pat you down (at the airport).”

Skousen has a simple analogy for all of this: “If you restrict a teenager, they rebel. I think that’s what people are feeling…”

In its annual governance survey conducted last fall, Gallup found that a record-high 81 percent of Americans were dissatisfied with the way the country was being governed. There were increases, too, in the responses to questions that gauge a more libertarian-view of governance: A record 49 percent said they believed government posed “an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens”; 57 percent believed the federal government had too much power; and 56 percent said they would be willing to pay less in taxes and accept fewer services (a position advocated during the campaign by Paul)…

Many pondered why Ron Paul, at 76 years old, attracted some massive crowds of 20-somethings to his rallies and, according to exit polls, consistently won the 18-29 age bracket early in primary season in states such as New Hampshire and Iowa.

Twenty-six-year-old (Students for Liberty President) Alexander McCobin has a response for that: “This is the most libertarian generation that’s ever existed, and it’s because libertarianism is just correct…”

To any remaining naysayers, they warn that this is neither a passing fad nor a “Ron Paul phenomenon” that will fade once he’s gone from the scene. They see hope in other up-and-coming libertarian-leaning Republicans: Justin Amash, a Michigan congressman seeking re-election whom Reason magazine christened “the next Ron Paul”; Kurt Bills, a Minnesota state representative who is running for U.S. Senate; and, of course, Rand Paul.

“Everything we’ve done up to this point is based on ideas. … It carries on well past Congressman Paul,” said Carl Bunce. “Hopefully we’ll start to bring more voters to bear into the Republican Party – all those apathetic voters that were like myself.”

When that happens, he said, “our ideas of liberty and freedom will persist.”

Friday, June 1, 2012

CalPERS says Illegal funds are now Legal?




STOCKTON - While in violation of the city charter, retirement benefits that Stockton paid for years on behalf of some elected leaders were perfectly legal according to state law, which overrides any local rules.

So representatives of the California Public Employees' Retirement System said Thursday.

Called CalPERS, the state agency manages pensions for 1.6 million public workers, including a longstanding contract with Stockton.

City leaders said they will now undertake bringing Stockton's CalPERS contract in line with its charter. Until that happens, they also will discourage any newly elected Stockton leaders from enrolling.

CalPERS already has agreed to remove from its rolls three city current elected officials - councilmen Elbert Holman and Dale Fritchen and Mayor Ann Johnston - if each so chooses. The public-pension agency will credit Stockton the funds contributed for each.

"I will disenroll," Johnston said. "Absolutely."

Fritchen said Thursday he was still fuzzy on the details. The three leaders expect a full debriefing Monday at City Hall. But Fritchen said he's intent on doing whatever is right by taxpayers.

Fritchen repeatedly has described dysfunction at City Hall, which led to the controversy, "frustrating."

"I keep saying that," he said. "I can't think of any other word."

'Click Here' To read the rest of Scott's Article





Who's enrolled

Stockton mayors and council members enrolled in the CalPERS retirement fund, and the amount the city contributed:

Mayors *Bold Denotes if official is still in office.

• Joan Darrah: $7,682.62 (collected retirement, now deceased)

• Ann Johnston: $45, 538.61 (not retired)
*Why is her dollar amount so much Higher than the rest of the people that have yet to retire? Maybe because she has been in
office longer than the City Charter's Limit. So she has almost $46,000 extra in her retirement, don't you think her "expert eye for finding the
problem" that she touts she has would've caught that amount in her should be non-existent pension??

• Gary Podesto: $7,018.43 (collecting retirement)


Council members

• Steve Bestolarides: $15,475.79 (not retired)

• Dan Chapman: $15,561.42 (not vested)

• Dale Fritchen: $12,189.52 (still accruing retirement)

• Gary Giovanetti: $8,326.68 (not vested)

• Ted Gonzales: $3,003.95 (not vested; cashed out his own money)

• Elbert Holman: $12,189.91 (still accruing retirement)

• Clem Lee: $15,622.18 (not vested)

• Leslie Martin: $23,599.99 (not retired yet)

• Sylvia Sun Minnick: $2,269.38 (collecting retirement)

• Victor Mow: $4,194.24 (collecting retirement)

• Rebecca Nabors: $15,566.89 (cashed out)

• Richard Nickerson: $4,486.29 (collecting retirement)

• Melvin Panizza: $4,297.94 (collecting retirement)

Source: City of Stockton

Saturday, May 5, 2012

“THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION WON’T STOP HERE”




I have made the case that Ron Paul is not only changing the Republican Party, but is catering to a new, emerging electorate that eschews the big government aspects of both parties. Writing today at CNN.com, Timothy Stanley makes some of the same observations:

Paul’s campaign represents a message that is bigger and perhaps more popular than the candidate himself. As it continues to collect small numbers of delegates and capture control of local GOPs, Paulism is proving itself to be in rude health. Long after Mitt Romney is nominated, feted at the convention, beaten by Obama and recycled as a question on Jeopardy (“In 2012, he lost every state but Utah.” “Who is … Britt Gormley?”), Paul’s philosophy will still be a factor in national politics — something to be feared and courted in equal measure…

I have to declare a great deal of affection for Paul. Unlike other politicians, he seems motivated by ideas — and he communicates his passion with the zeal of a nutty professor detailing the thrilling possibilities of quasars and black holes. This is a doctor who refused to accept Medicare payments but lowered his prices for patients who couldn’t afford him, who declined a government pension and never voted for a tax increase, who told Republicans they need to end the War on Drugs (and most other wars, too). He’s pure…

Paul’s 2012 candidacy has had certain hidden successes. Aside from all the money he raised, Ron Paul also attracted an unusual coalition of young people, libertarian Republicans, and disaffected Democrats — a coalition large enough for him to run even with Obama in some polls. The pull among the kids was big enough to fuel talk of a new generational voting bloc. In Iowa, he took 48% of the under-30s, compared with Santorum’s 23% and Romney’s 14%. In New Hampshire, he got 47%, while Romney took just 26%…

Within the GOP, the Paulites are still the unbeaten masters of the administrative procedure. Last Saturday, they swept a confusing ballot process in Louisiana to give themselves control of 70% of delegates attending the state’s nominating convention, which could mean they end up numerically “winning” Louisiana. Similar things have happened in Minnesota and even Romney’s home state of Massachusetts.

Combine this administrative brilliance with generational politics and you get a silent grass-roots revolution that is putting many Paulites in positions of power. In 2010, more than a dozen of them won elections as Republicans, including Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan and Sen. Rand Paul (son of Ron) of Kentucky. This year, two dozen active Paul backers are seeking election to Congress, along with more than 200 running for local office. The Paulites have effectively taken over the Iowa GOP. The state central committee now has six members who are passionate for Paul, and the head of the local party is now a Paulite. Given the importance of Iowa to the 2016 nomination, this is a coup in every sense.

All of this means the GOP can no longer ignore its libertarian “fringe.” On the contrary, it will have to reach out to a new generation of activists who don’t regard religious piety or continual warfare as sacred tenets of conservatism. Even Romney will have to take Sarah Palin’s advice not to “marginalize” the Paulites if he is to emerge from the nominating convention with a united party.

Whatever happens in 2012, we are living through a significant moment in the history of conservatism. The age of Bush and Obama — twin specters of lavish spending and imperial design — have birthed anti-government movements of right (tea party) and left (Occupy). The one that will last longest and have the most impact is the one that has been the most pragmatic and politically savvy.

The Ron Paul revolution won’t stop here.





Sunday, April 15, 2012

Mitt Romney: A new generation, a new political era awakens



"For the first time in 19 years I have today felt a rising sense of possibility as my kids go forward into the new century. They will for a decade yet still need to traverse the inherent nihilism of the ubiquitous driving music of the insidious and subliminal pop culture,"

I think he is hinting to all americans, that the youth is apparently rising up this year, and bringing forward a new ideology, and it is our turn. As a young Political Leader, we will ensure trust back into the puplic.

contact us by email: g.pitsch.85@gmail.com

Submit Domain Name

Submitdomainname.com

This Is Port City: Recent Posts

Taxes News Headlines - Yahoo! News