► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Tea Party’

Marco Rubio voted against the Debt Ceiling deal

by Phantom Ace ( 7 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Headlines at August 3rd, 2011 - 3:32 pm

Many Tea Party Conservatives/Libertarians were disappointed in Rubio supporting the Libyan war and having a Wilsonian interventionist foreign policy. Although I still have issues with his foreign policy views, he’s spot on on economic and fiscal issues. Unlike other Tea Party heroes like Allen West who agreed to this boondoggle, Marco Rubio held firm and voted against it!

 “I cannot support this plan because it fails to actually solve our debt problem, fails to diminish the risk of a credit rating downgrade and is not a long-term solution to avert a debt crisis,” Rubio wrote in a news release on his website.  “This plan still adds at least $7 trillion to our debt over 10 years.  It fails to immediately start downsizing government, leaving 98 percent of deficit reduction until after the 2012 election.  By not addressing the biggest driver of our debt, health care spending, this plan ensures Medicare’s looming bankruptcy, while protecting Obama Care’s $2.6 trillion blank check.”

It also could lead to a tax hike, Rubio wrote.

Marco Rubio is at this pioint the odds on favorite for the VP slot in 2012. He gets it on economic and fiscal matters. Now if only he would channel his inner Rightwing Latin self and reject Wilsonian nation building!

Read more:

John Boehner admits debt ceiling will be raised

by Phantom Ace ( 2 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Headlines, Republican Party at May 17th, 2011 - 5:40 pm

Liberal Republican Speaker John Boehner admitted to a constituency that the debt ceiling will have to be raised many times. This shows he’s not serious about debt and deficit reduction. Clearly this whole debt ceiling debate is just public posturing to appear as if they are serious about the budget.

DAYTON, Ohio (Reuters) – This John Boehner was not the John Boehner that Tea Party leaders in the room thought they knew.

[….]

The private April 25 meeting was convened by the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives at the request of Tea Party leaders, who were seething over recent Republican compromises, most notably on the 2011 budget.

One of the 25 or so leaders, all from Boehner’s district, asked him if Republicans would raise America’s $14.3 trillion debt limit.

According to half a dozen attendees interviewed by Reuters, the most powerful Republican in Washington said “yes.”

“And we’re going to have to raise it again in the future,” he added. With the mass retirement of America’s Baby Boomers, he explained, it would take 20 years to balance the U.S. budget and 30 years after that to erase the nation’s huge fiscal deficit.

Boehner, we don’t have 50 years to get our house in order. I will give John Boehner credit, he’s being honest that the Congressional GOP is not serious.

Tea Parties give Boehner high marks

by Phantom Ace ( 7 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Elections 2010, Headlines, Politics, Progressives, Republican Party, Special Report at April 9th, 2011 - 8:33 pm

It seems Speaker Boehner has come out the winner of the Budget showdown. He appeared more Presidential than Obama and was able to hold the Congressional caucus together. The Budget cuts 39.5 Billion dollars from the budget. Not enough to make a dent, but it’s a start.

Leaders of the small-government, tea-party movement are generally giving House Speaker John Boehner high marks for his leadership in the spending showdown, even though the agreement eventually reached Friday night fell short of the cuts the tea party once demanded.

The relationship between the Republican leadership and these activists is one of the most important determinants of how this Congress will manage the fiscal fights to come.

[…]

n a larger sense, Boehner has achieved more than just a short-term budget victory — in his first three months as speaker, he’s helped turn the entire Washington dialogue into a debate about the size and scope of government. He started the year by getting rid of earmarks, he’s pushing through some of the deepest spending cuts in American history, and he’ll now try to get most of the GOP Conference on board with Rep. Paul Ryan’s fiscal 2012 budget — one of the most audacious long-term spending plans in recent memory.

This is a start and at least we are not spending more. The GOP also didn’t fall for the Democrat’s trap. The Progressives were ready for a shutdown so they can blame the GOP.

US should stay out of Libya

by Phantom Ace ( 303 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, George W. Bush, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Liberal Fascism, Libya, Progressives, Republican Party at March 8th, 2011 - 11:30 am

In recent weeks prominent Republicans like Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, John McCain and Mitch McDonnell have called for US intervention in Libya. As a Conservative I view this attitude as madness. It seems as if the elites of the GOP, including Mrs. Palin, are under the influence of Wilsonian Progressivism. There is no US vital interest to intervene in Libya. The battle is between the forces of Muamar Qaddafi and a coalition of Islamists and tribesman. It is a battle of two evils and one that we should hope drags out and cripple Libya for decades. The fact that so many so called Conservatives haven’t abandoned the ridiculous and progressive “Freedom Agenda” of the Bush years shows the GOP hasn’t learned their lesson at the foreign policy level.

A good many people across the political spectrum—including some members of the Obama administration—are pressuring the president to intervene militarily in Libya. Much of the commentary has focused on establishing a no-fly zone, but there have been calls as well for enforcing a no-drive zone, or for arming or otherwise assisting regime opponents.

Those making this case appeal to a mixture of morality and realpolitik. They argue that by intervening we will prevent the slaughter of innocents and at the same time demonstrate our willingness to make good on expressions of support for freedom and security.

[…]

There are many reasons to avoid making Libya the center of U.S. concerns in the region. Libya is far from the most important country in the Middle East—both in terms of political influence and its impact on the oil market. American policy makers would be wiser to focus on what they can do to see that Egypt’s transition proceeds smoothly, that Saudi Arabia remains stable, and that Iran does not.

Intervening militarily in Libya would be a potentially costly distraction for the U.S. military. It is already overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan. The last thing it needs is another vaguely defined intervention in a place where U.S. interests are less than vital.

Read the rest: The U.S. Should Keep Out of Libya

I normally don’t agree with Richard Haass, but he is spot on here. The US military is already involved in two conflicts and is stretched out globally. We don’t have the money and would have to borrow from the Chinese plus others to pay for this useless intervention. I just laugh at how these hypocritical Progressive Democrats like John Kerry (D-Mass) are now all gung ho for a military adventure. These were the same people who undermined Iraq. This shows the only reason the Democrats opposed the Iraq War, which was in reality a Progressive action, was because a Republican undertook it. Now the Democrats who have lead America into the majority of its wars in the last 100 years, some of which were questionable (the exceptions were WWII and Korea), are back to their Progressive interventionist ways.

The Republican Party should resist this Progressive interventionist nonsense. The Republican House of Representatives should demand a resolution to authorize the use of force and force a debate on this subject.  If Obama launches an attack without Congressional approval, they need to hammer him without mercy. Instead, the elites of the GOP have the “spread Democracy at the point of the gun” ideology, which is not a Conservative foreign policy view, and will support Obama. They will be enabling another useless intervention where there is no economic gain for this nation.

 A Conservative foreign policy is based in reality, one that would be to protect America’s economic interest, support our allies and stand up to Islamic Imperialism. Bush’s Freedom Agenda was not Conservative, it was rooted in Progressive ideology. His claim that freedom at home depends on freedom abroad was utter nonsense. Freedom at home depends on a strong 2nd Amendment, limited federal powers, constitutional based court appointees, economic liberty and powerful a military. What type of system other nations, including allies, have is not our problem. I will take 10 Pinochets over 100 Hamid Karzais. Woodrow Wilson was an evil racist and vile man. No true Conservative should ever embrace his twisted and sick ideology.

If the Republicans are going to run in 2012 on spreading democracy at the point of a gun, they will not win. Many Conservatives are tired of this Progressive Woodrow Wilson Ideology infesting GOP leaders. We need a foreign policy version of the Tea Party. It’s time for Conservatives to rise up and destroy the Wilsonian foreign policy establishment of the GOP.