Fight for freedom!

PGA and politicians take note! And everyone else, consider taking out some insurance.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Hi everybody. If you remember me at all, you know me well enough to read this article. And I know you well enough to think this election loss was probably tough to take as we accept a reality many of us worked very hard to prevent. I also know that because of who we are we will allow ourselves to grieve and then we will begin again to fight for freedom.

(If this does not describe you, remember you never have to read any site you don’t want to.)

If you know me well, then you know I enjoy analyzing current events and encouraging that others do for themselves what all of us cannot do for you; that is educate and promote the ideals that you share with 58 million of your fellow Americans. It’s a big number especially when you consider that the majority of us produce and contribute far more to this great country than a good portion of the remaining 52%. I would venture that 25% of liberals are just misguided, 10-15% are evil and hate the country and the rest are clueless and just want an Obama-phone or the like. The evil 15% are beyond help, at least here on Earth.

The Gadsden flag. Might we have to fight under that symbol again?

Christopher Gadsden’s “Don’t Tread On Me” flag, the unofficial symbol of the Tea Party movement. Photo: User VIkrum/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License

It took a great deal of coping skills to function after the election – to do my job and still absorb and begin to plan for what I am going to do to help my fellow occupants on this “Titanic” despite figuratively hitting the Iceberg (again). Obama-Care is a done deal. It will hurt the economy and our families beyond measure, yet we cannot prevent its implementation. The succession of betrayals from Roberts to Christie to every single moderate should leave us with nothing but stronger resolve. Conservatives will win. Remember this, the Tea Party grew out of Mr. Obama’s first election, and now, perhaps his second term will awaken the remaining zombies. Regardless, we will not rely on anyone but ourselves to lower the life boats, row to safety and start anew. Make no mistake that is what we must do. Just as the leftists had bush/gore to embolden them, our same mandate is to get up and fight! Like Washington’s Army, like at the Alamo, like World War II. But to all who had doubt before, you must now accept the reality that is is a fight!

Here’s some analysis and observations plus some in insight on what I am going to do to help myself and my country. Maybe you can draw your own ideas and maybe we can unite on some fronts. I really do not fear failure, but I really resent complaining while doing nothing.

Analysis of where we sit:

  • FACTS: McCain/Palin garnered more votes than Romney/Ryan. Fewer people came out to vote than in 2008. Youth came out, single women favored Obama, many stayed home. Two billion dollars later we have no change so things will be gridlocked into status quo or worse. (Editor’s note: other contributors at first suspected fraud, until the evidence clearly said otherwise.)
  • Pundits are doing back flips to save their credibility by saying the demographics have changed and that this shows the GOP is out of step with the New America and that this also shows the power of incumbency.
  • Ford, Carter and Bush elder were all incumbents and demographics change daily, so that’s bogus. This is the Left’s attempt to convince us that our principles need to shift to their positions. I ask you: to open the tent, do we offer amnesty, do we reward the illegals who break the law and make those following the law wait in line? No. To get single women, do we let the “war on women” define the next group we pander to, like all the greats before it? – the “war on gays,” “the war on minorities,” “war on Latinos?” Maybe next will be the “war on fat” and of course the “war on tobacco” and the “war on sugar.” You see how this is all manipulation and tyranny. In a free country, these are silly. We’re not anti-women when we ask that they pay for contraception. Abortion is legal, women outnumber men and they are oppressed, but in the Middle East, not here. Gays do not sit at the back of the bus and drink from segregated fountains, and they can love whomever they like, but x+y is not the same as x+x so while your rights may be the same, it cannot be called “marriage.” It can be called whatever else you like. These are simple truths. Bottom-line, these are ways the elite Establishment, using Saul Alinsky tactics, get us to vote for them, so they can then convince us that only they can help. If there are no “wars,” they lose power…they lose control. FEMA will never replace your neighbor or your local charity, it’s simply an excuse to empower government and allow you to do nothing. This is evident from recent events. All these federal agencies are created to dis-empower us to create our dependency on them. We must help ourselves!

Of course, the underlying instrument that makes all this misinformation possible is problem number one: a corrupt media which is a propaganda machine much like Pravda was for the communists. It is that simple. Blink and you missed the complicity of our government in the horror of Benghazi, the threat to national security, the gun running over the border and so much more. There is no rational basis for all this ignorance except the ignorance of much of the american people, which essentially leads to problem number two: stupidity. We lose elections when we dumb down our people by indoctrinating subsistence and dependency. We allow government to say to us “You need us to save yourself.” No we don’t.

Identity politics makes victims of us all

I am a proud American born of Hispanic descent. The loss of our moderate candidate is laid at the foot of Latinos. Everyone says we have to reach out to Latinos to make our party appealing. Let me tell you, as a Latino, I am a conservative because our principles are about individual liberty. I do not feel oppressed, ignored or offended. Further, there are plenty of Latinos just like me who feel the same way. Latinos are no more clueless than the rest of the general population. Again, if we let ourselves be manipulated into accepting those who break the rule of law and grant them citizenship, we will never be able to uphold the rule of law, and we will never win another election. That’s not to say we can’t discuss how to deal with 12 million illegal aliens, but it should never include a granting citizenship (voting rights) for bad behavior when others follow the rules. This is the Left’s play for votes. It would be more reasonable to streamline the immigration process and encourage all legal immigrants from around the world not just from Latin America. Remember, in the 60s, Ted Kennedy championed legislation which said that we must limit immigrants from Europe in favor of Latinos and Asians. Again, social engineering, disguised as “fairness,” but if you speak out your labeled a racist. Of course, I am Latino so that crap does not work with me. Much like many “guilty” whites who give Obama a pass because he’s black, and “guilty” Jewish liberals who support appeasement of terror nations, this sort of thinking demeans all ethnic groups and says to me “you are not good enough to succeed without my help.” My mother taught me Spanish by speaking to me in Spanish. And she told my siblings and myself that we are Americans — English is our first language. She also taught me – Joseph, you are not a “minority,” educate and work to make yourself a “priority,” so based on this logical stream of thought and raised in a country that is based on equal access (not equal result). We have great Latino conservatives, they will just never be heroes of our media. We should do all we can to promote conservatism through them, but the only solution is teaching the principles of capitalism and freedom. I stand for rule of law.

I heard a black preacher say once that when other blacks asked him how he could be a conservative, he responded, “When my great grandfather looked around on the plantation he only saw slaves.” He then went on to say that only when you get off the “plantation of government” do you see the truth. When those around you are like you, you accept that there is no alternative, but when you step to freedom beyond what the eye can see, you rise to your God-given potential. We can no longer stay quiet about this when dealing with race relations in this country. Allan West, Susanna Martinez, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, Herman Cain – all derided because they walked without fear off of the plantation. This is why the corrupt media empowers Establishment Leftists. To maintain control, there must always be “victims” – blacks , women, gays, fats, Latinos, it never ends if we allow it.

Why all Obama’s “favorite” groups will still suffer

Ask yourself why all the groups Obama feigns support for suffer most and will continue to suffer the most because liberalism has set up this system:

Seniors – cuts Medicare Funding, O-Care establishes “death panels,” doctors driven out of profession, rationing begins for services.

Women – more unemployed than ever before, his own administration pays 70% on every dollar paid to men, rising gas, rising food costs but they are just vaginas so who cares

Gays – They don’t give a fig about your rights. Obama changes positions to secure votes (hurt him in North Carolina because blacks are pro-traditional marriage)

Latinos/Blacks – More unemployment than ever – 25%. Culturally you’re voting for a Democrat party that is against all your cultural preferences – you are pro faith, pro marriage, pro life – they’re not

Youth – his support of public sector unions drives tuition through the roof, he blames bush and Fannie and Freddie and graduates are paying more than ever and can’t find jobs – but he sings well and stands with Jay-Z so he’s cool (duh!)

We have invested over a trillion dollars in the “war on poverty” since the Sixties, and we have more poor than ever – 43 million on food stamps. This is not logically possible if we are helping people. What did the agencies do with all that money? We spend about $17,000 through the Dept of Education, yet many kids can’t say how Congress is elected, but know all about the “science” of global warming, marriage equality and women’s reproductive rights. This is indoctrination and it perpetuates the “wars,” and keeps them dumber than a box of rocks. Remember, an informed citizenry is a politician’s worst fear.

How to stay in the fight

Here’s what I’m going to do to stay in the fight for liberty:

  • Use my resources to support what I believe in, meaning if I like what a company stands for, I pull a Chick-Fil-A
  • If media tells me a lie, I will turn them off or drop their service
  • I will educate my fellow Hispanics into self-empowerment, at my church, in my work, and in my personal interactions
  • I will support like minded people, and establish a network of professional and personal contacts who love their country as I do
  • Ultimately, by these means, before I take my last breath on earth, I commit myself to making New Jersey a red State and firing Senators Menendez and Lautenberg for giving me zero representation in Congress.

The only problems in America are deluded and ignorant women, men, blacks, whites, gays, Latinos, seniors and youth. America’s greatest strength is its offer of freedom and only an informed electorate can preserve it. Right now, we have a lethal combination of a corrupt government and a corrupt media leading the dumbest in our flock to slaughter.

Stay strong & God bless & please wake up the remaining zombies because there is work to do!

[subscribe2]

48 Responses to Fight for freedom!

  1. TomBombadil says:

    I have one question: Name one freedom you had in 2004 that you don’t have now.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Peace of mind that what I earn will remain mine.

      • TomBombadil says:

        So in other words, you’ve never paid tax ever? Everything you earn has always been yours?

        Also, I was asking the OP, not you.

        • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

          I never said I hadn’t. But the sheer brass of Bandit-in-chief Obama’s attitude causes me to consider this tax issue in a fresh perspective.

      • rpeh says:

        That’s not a freedom, Terry. That’s your paranoia. Try again.

        • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

          All right: how about the freedom to handle my own health risks as I see fit? Obamacare takes that away.

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “how about the freedom to handle my own health risks as I see fit?”

            You mean the freedom to be without health insurance in the nation with the highest healthcare costs on Earth? Sure, Obamacare has denied you that freedom, Terry. What I don’t see is why you’d WANT it. I don’t have the freedom to be driven into bankruptcy just because I got ill, either, but strangely enough I don’t see that as a great loss.

          • rpeh says:

            “how about the freedom to handle my own health risks as I see fit?”

            The exact same insurance companies are there and they offer the exact same products. Unless you enjoyed paying more for drugs because of the “donut hole”, or have a young adult child who is now covered by your health insurance, you haven’t been affected at all. Try again. The question is “Name one freedom you had in 2004 that you don’t have now.”

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            No, they don’t. They will not be allowed to offer bargain insurance plans. They must either cover everything, or nothing.

            That’s why small businesses are already laying people off, or firing them, just to keep their staff number below 50.

            Now you can call them spoilsports, call them anything you want. But that is the consequences, intended or not, of this law. The law that you voted for when you voted for the man now holding office as President, Barack Hussein Obama.

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “They will not be allowed to offer bargain insurance plans. They must either cover everything, or nothing.”

            In Germany they must cover everything; not offering employee health insurance isn’t an option for employers, and refusing to cover birth control, pre-existing conditions etc isn’t an option for insurance companies.

            Funnily enough Germany has lower unemployment than the USA, lower per capita health expenditure (both government and private,) higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality and zero personal bankruptcies caused by health costs, while still managing to export more than the USA does despite having less than a quarter of the population.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            And it’s still a stagnant economy. I’ve told you before that Germany is not a model of freedom. It is a model of regimentation.

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “And it’s still a stagnant economy.”

            That’s a bit of an achievement in itself when the rest of the global economy is going down the pan, wouldn’t you say? Better to be stagnant than sinking. The fact is that Germany has high employment and a well-paid, well-educated workforce that lets it sell things the world wants. We sell you cars. We sell you electronics. We sell you weapons. Even the things you make yourselves are mostly made with German machine tools these days.

            “I’ve told you before that Germany is not a model of freedom. It is a model of regimentation.”

            And, while recognising your vastly superior knowledge of Germany, I still disagree. You might be able to find a few “freedoms” you have that I lack, Terry, but – like the “freedom” to have no health insurance – none of them are “freedoms” I want.

      • Fergus Mason says:

        “Peace of mind that what I earn will remain mine.”

        What, there was no income tax in 2004??

  2. Jeff A says:

    regarding the editor’s note. “Editor’s note: other contributors at first suspected fraud, until the evidence clearly said otherwise.”
    Was there and article or comment on this site establishing this? I saw the submission of 6 concerns (5 were fraud related), but have not seen “the evidence” which is being referred to by this note, and would like to be able to evaluate it for myself.

    • rpeh says:

      “That’s why small businesses are already laying people off, or firing them, just to keep their staff number below 50.”

      Really? The only businesses to lay off staff so far are a couple of Republican-owned concerns doing it to make a point. They’ll re-hire when they think nobody is looking. Neither have I seen any evidence that insurers are reducing the range of schemes they offer.

      • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

        Sorry, but you cannot hide the truth anymore.

        • rpeh says:

          I’m asking you to show me the truth, Terry. You’ve yet to do so.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            You wouldn’t know the truth if it slapped you across the face.

          • rpeh says:

            Terry, I’m asking you to play by the rules. Whenever any of the people who know what they’re talking about make a claim you demand proof. I’m doing the same.

            You have claimed that some insurance providers are withdrawing some of their products because of the ACA. If you’re right, that shouldn’t be too difficult to prove.

            Otherwise, I still require proof that you have lose “one freedom you had in 2004 that you don’t have now.” as per the original question.

            Both requests are very simple, assuming you’re telling the truth.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            I make the rules here, not you. And if you’re going to declare that every word I say is a lie, precisely because I say it, then I am going to find you in violation. Those are my rules. Violate them any more and I will de-register you. Let that suffice.

          • rpeh says:

            I simply believe you to be mistaken. All I would like is an example of an insurance policy that was offered before the ACA came into effect that is no longer offered. From what you’re saying that shouldn’t be difficult to find.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            Let’s look in 2014, when the full effect comes on-line, and see who was right.

            At least one fellow commenter already acknowledges the truth of what I say. He is proud of it. You’re not.

  3. Fergus Mason says:

    “to questioning whether this country can survive another four years of him”

    Oh get a grip. It survived eight years of Bush, didn’t it? If America didn’t fall to bits under the impact of Bush’s insane deficit spending and the disastrous and unnecessay Iraq war I don’t think it’s in much danger from a moderate centre-right president like Obama.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Moderate? Center-right? Don’t be absurd. Obama is a Marxist of the Marxists.

      • rpeh says:

        As Fergus said, get a grip. I can only assume you’ve never read The Communist Manifesto or you wouldn’t keep saying this. In British political terms, Obama would fit neatly into the modern Conservative party.

        • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

          A sad commentary on British Tories, then. And on the traditional Communist capacity for desinformatsiya, closely akin to the Muslim taquiyya.

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “A sad commentary on British Tories, then.”

            British Tories have worked out that you can have sound right-wing policies while resisting the suicidal urge to stick your nose under other people’s bedroom doors and into their fallopian tubes. That’s why Cameron got elected and Romney didn’t.

      • Fergus Mason says:

        “Moderate? Center-right? Don’t be absurd.”

        I’m not being at all absurd. Obama is a centre-right politician, as are most of his party. US politics is just so skewed that you’ve lost sight of that.

        “Obama is a Marxist of the Marxists.”

        Then why isn’t he implementing any Marxist policies?

        • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

          How do you know he isn’t implementing Marxist policies? How do you know he does not want to? If this is typical of European politics, then I pity the lot of you. You simply do not know what freedom is. As I have said before.

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “How do you know he isn’t implementing Marxist policies?”

            I think the nationalisation of all means of production and state control of wages, prices and output quotas might have popped above my horizon at some point, don’t you?

            “You simply do not know what freedom is.”

            You keep saying that, but you’ve failed to point out any freedoms you have that I lack, apart from the freedom to sell my house to pay for an operation.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            What makes you think that the nationalization of all means of production and government control of wages, prices, and output quotas is not his plan?

            Did he not nationalize at least one maker of automobiles?

            He has set the precedent.

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “What makes you think that the nationalization of all means of production and government control of wages, prices, and output quotas is not his plan?”

            Oh, nothing much. Just the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever that it IS his plan.

            “Did he not nationalize at least one maker of automobiles?”

            No, I don’t believe he did.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            Well, I’ll tell you: bailing out General Motors, and buying the controlling interest in its then-outstanding common stock, struck me as a nationalization in all but name. Now maybe you think a nationalization means an Act of Congress. (Or where you are, an Act of the Bundestag, or an Act of the Europarliament.) Now that would have been the straightforward way of doing things. But “straightforward” is simply not in the vocabulary of Barack Hussein Obama, taquiyya and desinformatsiya practitioner extraordinaire.

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “struck me as a nationalization in all but name”

            Well, yes. All but name, seizing the remaining stock, appointing a civil servant to run the company, putting the workforce on the government payroll…

            I grew up in a country with a nationalised car industry, Terry, and GM isn’t nationalised. The only thing it has in common with British Leyland is that its products suck. However as ALL American cars suck that doesn’t really prove much.

  4. rpeh says:

    “Did he not nationalize at least one maker of automobiles?”

    No. He didn’t. The government lent the company some money.

    See, Terry, you don’t know what the words mean. Learn the correct definitions of: Traitor, Fascis(t/m), Socialis(t/m), Marxis(t/m) and Communis(t/m). Until you do, you’re just trolling.

    You kept calling the man duly elected as your president, twice, all those things and were duly ignored because you have devalued those terms to the point of ineffectiveness.

    Reflect on that before using any of those terms again.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      The government bought the controlling interest in General Motors. That’s a nationalization where I come from.

      You’re the sort of guy, I see, who plays around with these strict definitions to avoid calling something what it is. I’ll tell you something: I find that sort of thing deceptive. I expect that of Barack Hussein Obama.

      I—ahem, ahem—expect better of my guests.

      And I’ll tell you something else: I don’t think he was duly elected President at all. Not this last time, and not the time before that. Start with his father being a British colonial subject. And then continue with the multiplying allegations of voter fraud—allegations that didn’t start with me.

      • Fergus Mason says:

        “The government bought the controlling interest in General Motors. That’s a nationalization where I come from.”

        No, it’s evidence that you have no idea what nationalisation means.

        • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

          Whether the government owns or merely controls a company, the effect is the same.

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “Whether the government owns or merely controls a company, the effect is the same.”

            Nads. Is the government telling GM how many cars to build? Are they setting prices? Are they dictating what market sectors to aim at?

            All these things happen in a nationalised industry, Terry. None of them are happening at GM. All that happened is that the government bought up a bunch of shares as a way to inject cash into a US firm and prevent it collapsing.

            Do I agree withdoing that? Not really. The US car industry, and many of its customers, need a good kick up the ar*e with the boot of reality. The USA builds rubbish cars. They have nasty cheap interiors, wallowing suspension and poor build quality. American drivers are obsessed with having obsolete, inefficient engines with no redeeming virtues whatsoever. The typical high-end American car has a huge, clunky V8 which is more or less a modernised 1950s design, and it uses more fuel to put out less power than a modern German Diesel half its size. I think GM should have been allowed to go under as a salutary lesson in economics, but that doesn’t change the fact that it hasn’t been nationalised.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            Yes, the government is telling GM how many cars they may build, and of what type. Yes, the government is setting the price. Yes, the government is dictating a market sector to aim at.

            Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: the Chevrolet Volt. That travesty of a marketing campaign illustrates all three elements of government control that you mention.

            The Ford Motor Company declined this government control. They are, therefore, the last of the independent automobile makers in the United States.

          • Fergus Mason says:

            “Yes, the government is telling GM how many cars they may build, and of what type. Yes, the government is setting the price. Yes, the government is dictating a market sector to aim at.”

            No, I don’t actually believe that it is. I don’t suppose you can give me a link to the Private Automobile Production Quota for the current Five Year Plan, can you?

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            Search on “Chevrolet Volt” and you will see measures analogous to those you named. They include heavy subsidies for manufacture and purchase, and the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

  5. Joseph Sangillo says:

    Thanks to all who responded to my piece…To add to Terry’s points about taxes, I will add that once in a galaxy far, far away, in the pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness, the unborn’s constitutional right to life was unchallenged, I was not forced to fund abortions, my rights of conscience were protected, I could pray in a public school, serve Christmas cookies, sell lemonade without a permit, smoke in the park, keep my property without threat of imminent domain, light my home with 100 watt bulbs without guilt, and drink a 20 ounce sugary drink. From the beginning, Progressives, for the “good” of the collective and misguided purpose, moved to suppress individualism and these simple freedoms. Once upon a time, students were free to eat lunches packed by mom without scrutiny from Ms. Obama. They were free to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in English without fear of reprisal and a valedictorian could thank GOD in a speech without issue. We were free to aspire to greatness, not encouraged to default to mediocrity where everyone gets a trophy for trying. The argument of lost freedom today versus yesterday is mute because these TRUTHs are inarguable. My overriding point is that the direction is wrong, going back 35 years, my lifetime; and while Romney was not perfect, on face he was certainly closer to a “free market” capitalist ideal than Obama or even Bush, and the statist ideology they embody. It’s these simple pleasures, all taken from us, all added together, that paint the grim but real picture of where we stand.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.