-
Recent Posts
Archives
Categories
- Art (88)
- Behavior and Psychology (20)
- Business, Industry and Finance (63)
- Constitution and Law (370)
- Consumer Affairs (4)
- Culture (17)
- Deep State (5)
- Economy (3)
- Education (238)
- Environment (74)
- Fraud Alert (8)
- Global Issues (1)
- Health and Medicine (149)
- History (8)
- Humour (94)
- Military (115)
- Morals and Ethics (149)
- News Media (11)
- Police, Crime, Security (215)
- Politics and Government (144)
- Religion (91)
- Science and Technology (19)
- Veterans' Issues (13)
- World (12)
Recent Comments
- ClayPidgeon on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Michael Davis on Life In Chico and Other Places Infected by Bums
- Patricia Lieder on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Dawn on Thaddeus Kerns Boy Aviator
- scott sproat on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
Recent NorCal Blogs Posts
And Secret Service protection was extended for life under Obumble instead of just the 10 years after leaving office as was before.
Guess he thinks he’s gonna need it . . . . . .
I love it! On the other hand it is sad.
It is sad…
Off topic but I wanted to ask what Jack and Peggy, and anyone else who has an interest in the republican Party, think of this American Thinker article, “Transitioning To a New Political Party”?
I think we might be ready for this idea…how about you?
I no longer call myself a Republican because the party no longer reflects my core principals and beliefs. I didn’t change the party did.
I believe we are at a Charles Sumner’s moment. It’s time to draw a line in the sand with progressives on one side and conservatives on the other. Hopefully, there won’t be another near death beating on the Senate floor, but it is time to make the break so conservatives will be able to vote for candidates they agree with instead of staying home or holding our nose when we vote.
Ron Paul tried to start another/third party and failed. His son Rand lived that failure and I think is why he’s trying to work from within the Republican party to make the change work.
With Cruz, Lee, Paul, Goudy and others there is a strong core to form a new party, that I would join right now. The midterm election results should give us a good indication if the time is good or not.
The reason the IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious investigations have not moved forward is because the progressives in the Republican party don’t want them to. The IRS delays on the TP groups not only benefits the Democrats, it benefits the progressive Republicans too. No subpoenas after over a year and/or two to call witnesses to testify doesn’t take an academic genius to figure out why.
It’s time for a new Conservative party. The Democrats can have all the progressives they want.
Tina, additionally here’s a trip down memory lane supporting my above statement.
A Renewed Reagan Conservatism:
A rudderless Republican Party, afraid to assert itself in the face of a rising liberal/progressive onslaught. A confident Democratic Party in the White House, undermining the nation, its economy, and its foreign policy, with timid Republicans feckless in response. A battle for the heart of the GOP and the next presidential nomination among conservative Republicans and liberal Republicans.
Sound familiar? Of course.
But I’m not just talking about March 2014. I’m also talking about March 1977, when a genuine conservative Republican named Ronald Reagan surveyed the political landscape and saw something hauntingly similar. Reagan resolved to do something about it, and he laid out that vision 27 years ago right now, at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) that meets again this week. What Reagan said in that speech remains crucial for conservatives and the Republican Party today.
Ronald Reagan began speaking at CPAC in 1974, its first gathering. He addressed the faithful 13 times through his final year in the White House. But perhaps his most vigorous defense of conservative thinking came in his remarks delivered on Feb. 6, 1977, his 66th birthday.
Reagan began by explaining his view of conservatism:
“The common sense and common decency of ordinary men and women, working out their own lives in their own way—this is the heart of American conservatism today. Conservative wisdom and principles are derived from willingness to learn, not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before.”
“The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind. When we conservatives say that we know something about political affairs, and that we know can be stated as principles, we are saying that the principles we hold dear are those that have been found, through experience, to be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities and for nations—found through the often bitter testing of pain or sacrifice and sorrow.”
In 1980, pursuing a bold, unapologetic conservative agenda, Reagan won 44 of 50 states against an incumbent president. Four years later, he won 49 of 50 states. He won those two elections by a combined Electoral College margin of 1,014 to 62. He twice won states like California and Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. And when he was finished, liberalism was dead for a generation.
Now liberalism is back, in the form of what it’s calling “progressivism.” It can be defeated again.
Reagan, a decade earlier, called it a “Time for Choosing.” A time, he dramatically said, to preserve for America’s children “this, the last best hope of man on earth.”
“If we lose freedom here,” said Reagan, “there’s no place to escape to.” Choosing wrong meant a long period of “darkness.” Reagan believed that conservatism shined a light through the darkness.
“We can do it,” Reagan insisted. “This is not a dream, a wistful hope…. I have seen the conservative future and it works.”
It would be easy to dismiss this as pie-in-the-sky in 2014, just as it seemed in 1977. But Ronald Reagan made it work. He turned the tide. Why can’t it happen again?
Complete article here:
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/a-renewed-reagan-conservatism/
It’s an idiotic comparison. The only people who think it’s a good idea to live under armed guard 24/7 are totalitarians of the fascist sort.
It is doubly idiotic to blame the president because the country is full of whack-jobs who would shoot him … if they could.
Blame the President for whack jobs that would shoot him?
Gee, I thought the funny was his inability to just use common sense!
Peggy I look forward to the day! The hunger is there, that’s for sure.
Tina, the cartoon reflects your worldview, that to live “Forted Up” is necessary … that barbed wire on your borders will make you safe. It won’t.
And some people, most, in fact, would rather not live that way.
Barbed wire? Very funny!
Your worldview mirrors the president’s. Apparently when he was a senator he backed a bill to give funds to Ukraine for the destruction of it’s weapons:
He’s certainly no Boy Scout! The President doesn’t believe in letting anyone “be prepared” to defend themselves.
That massive ego was just beginning to shine. He was sure that one day, when he was president, the whole world would bow to his superior intellect and fall into a perpetual state of peace.
We don’t have to live with barbed wire but it is patently stupid to pretend there are no ambitious tyrants left in the world just because “The One” has been elected. This world view is held by adolescent clowns and he sure looks like one on the world stage.