Why Obama and the Democrats are going to lose the Medicare debate…

Nancy Pelosi once said of Obamacare that we had to pass it so we can find out what’s in it.  Well one of the big stink bombs that the Democrats don’t want to talk about is the massive cuts they made to Medicare when they passed Obamacare.  These cuts were designed to keep Obamacare deficit neutral and was a key provision that helped both the House and Senate pass the the bill in March 2010.  In fact in the below video President Obama stated that he would veto the bill if there was any attempt to undo the cuts to Medicare. Check it out.


So how have the Democrats received a free pass for so long in regards to the massive cuts they made to Medicare when they passed Obamacare?  How were they able to shape the narrative when Paul Ryan came out with a budget that would repeal these cuts and keep Medicare solvent for people 55 years and older, changing nothing in the coverage they are receiving?  How did they get away with videos showing a Paul Ryan look alike pushing grandma off the cliff when they had already pushed grandma off the cliff a year earlier?  There are four reasons for this.  The first is Republic leadership under House Speaker John Boehner has been weak and indecisive.  They did a terrible job getting their message out and when the Democratic narrative began to gain traction with seniors Boehner did what he always does; cuts and runs.  The second reason the Democrats have been able to keep a lid on their cuts to Medicare is because the MSM has turned a blind eye to it.  They have either underreported the facts on this subject or have ignored it in its entirety.  If you ignore an act or action, then you don’t have to acknowledge it happened.  The third reason is because the average voter is mostly uninformed in regards to the issues and like I’ve said many times before the Democrats rely on this ignorance to advance their agenda.  And finally the last reason is because we haven’t had a debate about Medicare on a national stage until now.  If you have a national debate about a topic and compare and contrast two plans side by side, then Americans with all the information can make an informed decision in regards to it.  This is a destination the left doesn’t want to reach.

They need Americans lost and in the dark.  They need us ignorant so they can pass bills in order for us to find out what’s in them.  They need us dazed and confused so they can drive the narrative.  They don’t believe in empowering the individual, they rely of the ignorance of the masses.  The last thing the Democrats wanted was a young, articulate, individual running around proposing common sense solutions to address the problems with Medicare while at the same time pointing out the shortfalls of the Democrats.  Now the Democrats and Obama are trying to defend an action that is indefensible and they’re losing.  This is why they’re trying to switch the debate back to Romney’s taxes.  You see once Americans get the information more often than not they make the right decision and this scares the crap out of the left.  Since Paul Ryan has taken Medicare debate on the road the left has been in complete disarray.  To give you an idea how rattled they are take a look at the below video clip.  It’s about 12 minutes long but worth the watch.


The most revealing part of this video comes at the two minute mark when Howard Dean stated, “You can’t convince people that a Dem is going to cut Medicare.”  This should convince you just how much the left relies on the ignorance of the average voter.  Even when they cut Medicare by $700 billion, they believe you won’t believe they actually did it because hey they’re Democrats.  It’s absolutely insulting.  But this is why we do the things we do and why we need to help Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan get the word out about this.  The more people learn about the Romney/Ryan plan for Medicare the more people will not only see the need to fix, but I believe they will embrace the Ryan plan because it makes sense  And once people come to terms with the fact that the Democrats have already gutted it, I see bad times for any candidate with a “D” in front of their name.  And finally Charles Krauthammer drives the point home about the cuts the Democrats made to Medicare in the below clip.


We’re now having a national discussion about Medicare and it’s a good thing.  And because we’re finally having this debate I believe Obama and the Democrats are going to lose it.  Why?  Because the most dangerous threat to the status quo is an informed voter and this debate is definitely informing the voter.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Original Post: The Sentry Journal

Ignorance is the Fuel That Advances the Left’s Agenda…

The greatest threat to our liberties is not the average politician.  The greatest threat to our liberties is the ignorant voter; the voter who doesn’t take the time to do their homework in regards to the issues.  These are voters who vote by name recognition or by party affiliation.  These are voters who check the party box on the ballot.  These are voters who have a myopic view of America and continuously spew the talking points of the politician they support even if it’s factually wrong.  They are the Kool-Aid drinkers and part of the rainbows and unicorns crowd.  They believe the lie before the truth and claim the truth is a lie.  They feel and vote based on emotions rather than facts.  They put as much thought into the politician they support as the last minute Christmas shopper puts into the gift they’re buying before the stores close; they settle for what’s left on the shelves.  Each of us has had our own experience with people like this.  They think they know more than they actually do.  And this is the kind of voter the left needs to advance their agenda.

The ignorant voter will buy into the misleading campaign ads the left is throwing out there.  They won’t take the time to do the research because they get ensnared in the emotional narrative the left lays out for them.  And the left is counting on these voters this November.  Without them and their ignorance they cannot win.  With them, they have plenty of fuel to propel them to victory.  The only way the left has a chance this November is to divert our attention away from the issues that matter.  They have been attempting to do this with class warfare, the war on women, and Romney’s tax returns.  As misguided as the left is they are passionate creatures who believe in their cause.  They believe the ends justify the means and will sink to extraordinary lows to attack an opponent or change the national discussion from the issues that really matter.  The latest anti-Romney ad that claims Romney’s actions while he was at Bain Capital indirectly led to the death of a woman who lost her health insurance when her husband was laid–off is absolutely heart-wrenching.  The problem is it’s extremely misleading; but this doesn’t matter to the Kool-Aid drinkers; they are emotional and are moved by the misleading story.  The misleading story strikes a chord with them.  This kind of campaign ad is designed to target ignorant voters because the left knows the ignorant voter will not do the research or will ignore the facts when they are presented to them.  It’s designed to plant the seeds of doubt about Romney and depict him as an uncaring rich guy who doesn’t give a crap about the average American.  So what can we do counter this?

The first thing we can do is continue to write about these stories when we hear about them.  We must use the social media to expose these lies.  Even if one person reads a post you publish and it changes their mind about a specific politician then we’re making a difference.  We need to chip away at this base of Kool-Aid drinkers who blindly fuel the left’s agenda.  There will not be a major shift in a short time.  Instead we will erode away left’s base a piece at a time.  Don’t kid yourself it will take years.  In order to stop the left from advancing their agenda we must begin to siphon the fuel that powers it.  This fuel is the ignorant voter and every ignorant voter we get to open their eyes is less fuel for the left.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Original Post:  The Sentry Journal

Obama: 90 Days And A Wake-Up

Clint Eastwood Makes Romney’s Day With Endorsement

“I think the country needs a boost,” Eastwood told The Associated Press …

Face-to-face Report On Young Obama’s Faith In A Coming Communist Revolution


The biggest threat to American national security since 1941? The President of the United States.  And so …

 Tyranny Watch:

House Passes Bill Eliminating Senate Approval of Presidential Appointments

By a vote of 261-116, the House of Representatives passed a bill rewriting Article II of the Constitution and divesting the Senate of the power to accept or reject the appointment of many presidential nominees.

Protesters Chicken Out:

Chick-Fil-A ‘Kiss in’ protest small compared to appreciation day

A Gutless Call:

Terrorist Freed After Obama Admin Denies Gitmo Entrance

Judicial Watch reports that Hezbollah commander Ali Mussa Daqduq, who tortured and killed 5 U.S. soldiers in Iraq and was detained by U.S. forces in early 2007, will be freed by an Iraqi court–the inevitable, and predictable, result of an Obama administration decision to hand him over to Iraqi authorities rather than bring him to Guantanamo Bay.

Will Gingrich Respond to National Review’s Call to Drop out and Endorse Santorum?

After surging in South Carolina,  Newt Gingrich crashed and burned in Florida, and shows no signs or recovering.  After several poor showings in a row, the vultures are circling over the dying campaign.  One influential source, The National Review, has called on him to drop out of the race, and lend his support to Rick Santorum.  Teresa, at Teresamerica, has more…

Today the National Review has taken a bold move and requested that Gingrich drop out of the race and endorse Rick Santorum.  With Santorum’s rise in popularity and continued surge, and Gingrich’s implosion I think this is a good idea.  

It isn’t yet a Romney–Santorum contest, but it could be headed that way. We hope so. Gingrich’s verbal and intellectual talents should make him a resource for any future Republican president. But it would be a grave mistake for the party to make someone with such poor judgment and persistent unpopularity its presidential nominee. It is not clear whether Gingrich remains in the race because he still believes he could become president next year or because he wants to avenge his wounded pride: an ambiguity that suggests the problem with him as a leader. When he led Santorum in the polls, he urged the Pennsylvanian to leave the race. On his own arguments the proper course for him now is to endorse Santorum and exit.

Santorum has been conducting himself rather impressively in his moments of triumph and avoiding characteristic temptations. He is doing his best to keep the press from dismissing him as merely a “social-issues candidate.” His recent remark that losing his Senate seat in 2006 taught him the importance of humility suggests an appealing self-awareness. And he has rightly identified the declining stability of middle-class families as a threat to the American experiment, even if his proposed solutions are poorly designed. But sensible policies, important as they are, are not the immediate challenge for his candidacy. Proving he can run a national campaign is.

This should be seen as the sentinel event that it is.  Some major sources on the right are turning on Gingrich.  The real question is, will Gingrich step aside for the good of the Party and Movement, or will he hang on for the sake of hubris?

The fall of Gingrich can be blamed on the same source that brought about  his surge.  He is well known for debating off the cuff, with little preparation.  Given his incredible fund of information, and his ability to communicate, he could hit them out of the park.  However, swinging for the fences is a double edged sword.  Sluggers like Gingrich do hit a lot of tape-measure shots, but, they also strike out a great deal.  And, in the end, that was his failing.  Playing off the cuff works brilliantly sometimes, and causes embarrassment at others.  That is not a way to run a Presidential campaign, no matter one’s level of intelligence, or grasp of the issues.

Santorum, on the other hand, has engaged in a wise strategy of sticking to issues, and communicating Conservative principals.  For a case in point, kindly take the time to look at his CPAC speech, courtesy of  Catholibertarian…


Slowly but surely, Santorum is uniting Conservatives.  While it might simply be that he is the most consistent Conservative in the field, or that he “isn’t Romney,” he is galvanizing support for the right wing of the GOP.  The real question now is if he can fend off the well funded, and unethical Romney smear machine.  If he does take Michigan, Romney’s home state, it’s a race.

And frankly, that’s where Gingrich comes in.  With Santorum running close to, and sometimes ahead of, Romney in the polls, he needs an additional bump to get over the top.  This is especially vital when Romney’s money advantage comes into play.  While Gingrich is getting 10 percent or so in races, most of his supporters would gravitate towards Santorum.  With an endorsement, almost all would go.  And, since there is little bad blood between the two, Santorum would likely take most Gingrich voters.  That would go far to help Santorum take on Romney and his deep pockets.

Any way it goes, it should get exciting.

Re-Redefining Conservatism

Remember when Bush came into office with his “compassionate conservative” slogan?  Remember how that translated?  Compassionate conservatism was Bush’s way of saying, “Hey, I’m for capitalism, but only up to a certain point, then I’m for socialism”.  In politics, this is a “playing the whole field” approach.  It appeases moderates who want to hear milquetoast language, liberals who want the social net, and conservatives who aren’t paying attention (hey, conservatism is in the name, it must be good).

Now Romney, who plays center field with the range of Willie Mays, ran into a criticism after he said that he “didn’t care about the poor”. I know, it’s an unfair media-biased statement taken out of context (he also said he didn’t care about the rich, but that’s not reported) but the political reality is that the media has defined this as heartless.  In order to hedge his losses, Romney has turned to Bush’s “Compassionate Conservative” approach with a statement that supports raising minimum wage.

Now supporting a minimum wage increase is stupid.  It doesn’t help the poor; it hurts them. This is why I have a problem with the whole premise of “Compassionate Conservatism”.  Conservatism is the most compassionate form of government ideas we have.  By simply forcing employers to pay a higher wage for their lowest paying jobs many have to either take a loss or hire less.

I’ve been on the losing end of a minimum wage increase.  I worked for a construction company managing their in-house tool rental site for contractors.  There were a lot of minimum wage “hands” that were used by this company for various jobs.  In my area, the minimum wage workers cleaned up used tools, kept the area swept, put away returned tools, scaffolding, and various odds and ends.  When the minimum wage increased a few of these hands were let go and I was forced to do their job on top of my own.  I lost (more work for the same pay), and they lost (no work for no pay).

Conservatism’s compassion comes with the rules of capitalism.  Most workers who make minimum wage are unskilled, young, and just starting to get into the work place.  If you’re unskilled, then you start at minimum wage to learn a skill.  If you work hard then you can convince your employer that it is more cost effective to keep you than it is to retrain someone else.  If that doesn’t get you a wage increase, then you move to a business who wants your skill set or you try learning a more desirable skill set at a starting wage again.  The point is that YOU have more control over your wage.

Liberalism says that government is best equipped to enforce wages.  It doesn’t trust YOU to make the proper decisions or apply the proper work ethic to achieve higher earnings.  Therefore, they have to come in every few years and change the bottom line for employers.  Thing is, when government is constantly telling employers how much they HAVE to pay their lowest wage earners, then the employer is less likely to listen to their workers who ask for increased wages.  Why would you increase the wages if the government is just going to raise it in a year or two anyway?   Negotiation has been done away with along with any effort to self promote.

All of this breeds a community of workers that expect much for little effort. You can find a whole community of them “occupying” various parks and sidewalks in most cities.  A few years ago you could find these same mind-set communities being organized by a man who now lives in a white mansion.  Apparently Mitt heard about that and thought he would try that same approach.  The problem is, the people he’s now pandering to aren’t going to vote for him anyway.  Watching someone sell out is bad enough, but to sell out for free…That’s just not the sign of a good businessman.

We cannot let conservatism be hijacked by these liberals masquerading as true believers.  It is important that we continue to stand up against liberalism, even when it is called conservatism.  Of course, in order to do that, you must be able to tell the two apart.

Original Post: The Sentry Journal

January 16, 2012 9:00 PM EST GOP Debate Live Feed

Well folks, it’s time for yet another GOP debate.  Will we see or hear anything different, or even interesting?  While I doubt it, it’s still worth watching, just in case.  So here is the link to the live feed…

FOX News

Feel free to drop your opinions in the comment section.

GOP Debate: Live Stream

We, some are gone, and fewer remain.  The GOP debate will be taking place  tonight at 9:00PM.  For those of you wanting to watch on-line, here are the links for the live stream.


Yahoo! News

It should be interesting to see if Rick Santorum has a strong showing.  He needs one to show that his performance in Iowa wasn’t a one-time deal.  He also needs to strike a contrast with Romney,  and try to sell voters on there being a difference.   Come to think of it, all the candidates need a strong showing,  With Romney in the lead, and being supported by the MSM and the establishment, mistakes are not going to be recoverable events.

At any rate, it ought to be interesting to see how the candidates will perform.

Some Thoughts on GOP Candidates: Is it now Romney vs. Gingrich?

Are we now stuck with Romney the waffler vs Newt the neocon for the GOP nomination?   Herman Cain is under sustained attack, and is slipping in the polls.  Bachmann is teetering on irrelevance.  Ron Paul is great, but has little chances.  Santorum is running as a Social Conservative when people care more about the economy.  Huntsman is irrelevant, as well as being all but a Democrat.

As we speak, Gingrich is on the rise.  I did watch his debate with Cain, and was impressed with his speaking ability.  Let’s face it, he’s incredibly intelligent, and can speak, with authority, on nearly any policy topic.  He can crush any other candidate in a debate, including Obama.  That make him attractive as a candidate, until you remember his history…

NY 23?  Supporting the GOP candidate against the actual Conservative?

Commercial with Nancy Pelosi?

Robert Stacy McCain has his opinions as well…

The idea that Newt could fill the role of a champion of grassroots conservatism against the Republican Establishment is so absurd as to be laughable, if the situation were not so tragic.

Tragic indeed!  We have to remember that Gingrich is Mr. Establishment. He isn’t going to embrace the Tea Party Conservatives.  He’ll provide lip service, and throw them under the bus at the first opportunity.  Also, a President Gingrich will not actually cut government. He might slow it down a bit, but the same failed departments will exist, and continue to grow, at a slightly slower rate.

R.S. McCain continues…

Anyone who thinks Newt can beat Obama is delusional. As bad as Romney is, he’s not worse than Gingrich, and if this Newt Bubble isn’t deflated PDQ, I fear that I might be stuck making that argument next February, a profoundly depressing prospect.

I’ve been saying since the beginning of the campaign that the GOP could run a dead cat against Obama and win.  However, the GOP will usually pick a candidate that’s worse than a dead cat.  That is what we are staring at right now.

I do have to disagree, ever so slightly, with R.S.  Gingrich, for as bad as he is, isn’t the great haircut, with an empty head attached, that Romney is.  I think, in many respects, that the 2012 election will be similar to 2008 in that ‘08 was more about “Bush” fatigue than Obama.  The Democrat was going to win, whether it was Hillary, or Obama.  2012 is going to be about Obama fatigue and his failure.  Given that scenario, even Gingrich could beat Obama.  However, this should be more about getting a true Conservative into office, rather than just winning.  With a Gingrich or Romney, we could win the election, but, in the end, lose the Republic.