Posts Tagged ‘Republican’

Lugar “Obama’s favorite Republican.”

February 8, 2012

 

Obama‘s Favorite Republican
Dear Second Amendment Supporter,
We told you about the most anti-gun Republican in the U.S. Senate, Dick Lugar of Indiana.
MSNBC calls Lugar “Obama’s favorite Republican.”
And it’s no wonder; Lugar voted for Obama’s anti-gun Supreme Court nominees, and both the President and the Senator support banning guns.
But don’t take our word for it – listen to what Lugar said when he was running for president in 1996 about his support for the Clinton gun ban.
In this YouTube video, Lugar brags about his vote and implies that supporters of the Second Amendment lack “common sense.” The year the so-call “assault weapons” ban passed, Lugar also received a contribution from leftist George Soros.
Even worse, Lugar supports the global, UN small arms treaty. And if Republicans take back control of the Senate – which is likely in 2012 – Lugar will become chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. You can bet Lugar will pull out all the stops to cram that treaty through the Senate.
Thankfully, this year we have a tremendous opportunity to defeat Lugar.
Richard Mourdock, Indiana’s current State Treasurer, is battling Obama’s favorite Republican in the state’s May 8th Republican primary.
Mourdock is a genuine gun rights supporter. He will oppose the anti-gun agendas of Obama, the UN, and the leaders of either political party. Richard Mourdock has the pro-gun community and grassroots conservatives on his side.
Where Lugar has an advantage is in money, which is pouring in from his liberal allies across the country. In fact, he is already up on TV misleading voters about his record, and he will stay on the air through the primary.
But if gun owners and sportsmen from across the country all chip in a few bucks, while we might not be able to out raise Lugar, we can ensure that Mourdock will have enough to get his message out to the voters.
So check out this 31-second commercial, and then please visit www.richardmourdock.com and click the “Donate Now” button.
Working together, we can send Lugar packing, before he does even more damage to our gun rights.
Thank you for standing with GOA, and for your support of Richard Mourdock.
Sincerely,
Tim Macy
Vice Chairman
PS Let’s not let Dick Lugar get away with further eroding our gun rights. Check out this video and then visit www.richardmourdock.com today to make a contribution.
Paid for by Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
We, the people, have a duty to get rid of phony conservatives…

Comparision / Contrast: AKA holding your nose when you vote

January 29, 2012

We Americans are about to yet again have to hold our collective noses when we vote in the coming election.

One thing is clear, and that is that Obama must go. His attempts at undermining American sovereignty. His just plain lousy choices for advisers and people in high office such as Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder being the best examples. His idiotic handling of energy and economic issues, crony capitalism, and the list just goes on forever make his removal from office a no brainer. His inexcusable use of the military as an election tool just tops off the cake.

So, what are we left with? Yet another chorus of decidedly poor choices. Let’s take an observation  them through the looking glass of the Bill of Rights.

Mitt Romney

In the recent Presidential debate, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann said America’s voters did not need to “settle” for the moderate candidate. Amen to that.

And gun owners do NOT want candidates who talk out of both sides of their mouths.

As the Gun Owners of America’s Board of Directors looks at the Republican candidates running to unseat radical anti-gun President Obama, we see several who have strong pro-gun backgrounds. Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman all have solid pro-gun records and deserve a hard look from pro-gunners.

At least one frontrunner candidate stands in contrast with a decidedly mixed record on the gun issue. While Mitt Romney likes to “talk the pro-gun talk,” he has not always walked the walk.

“The Second Amendment protects the individual right of lawful citizens to keep and bear arms. I strongly support this essential freedom,” Romney assures gun owners these days.

But this is the same Mitt Romney who, as governor, promised not to do anything to “chip away” at Massachusetts’ extremely restrictive gun laws.

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said during a gubernatorial debate. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”[1]

Even worse, Romney signed a law to permanently ban many semi-automatic firearms. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense,” Romney said in 2004. “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”[2]

Romney also spoke in favor of the Brady law’s five day waiting period on handguns. The Boston Herald quotes Romney saying, “I don’t think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”[3]

Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

And that makes it all the more troubling that Romney refuses to answer GOA’s simple candidate questionnaire. In our more than 36 years of experience, a candidate is usually hiding anti-gun views if he or she refuses to come clean in writing with specific commitments to the Second Amendment.

Today, Romney may be a favorite “Republican Establishment” candidate of the national press corps. But that is exactly what gun owners DON’T need in a new President. We need someone who will stand by true constitutional principles and protect the Second Amendment.


[1] Mitt Romney in the 2002 Massachusetts Gubernatorial debate.  Part of the quote can be read in this article at Scot Lehigh, “Romney vs. Romney,” Boston Globe (January 19, 2007) at:

http://mittromney4potus.blogspot.com/2007/01/context.html

“Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban,” July 8, 2004, at: http://www.iberkshires.com/story.php?story_id=14812

[3] Mitt Romney, quoted by Joe Battenfeld in the Boston Herald, Aug. 1, 1994.

Newt Gingrich

Prior to the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia had earned an A rating with Gun Owners of America.  But that all changed in 1995, after Republicans were swept to power and Gingrich became Speaker of the House.

The Republicans gained the majority, thanks in large part to gun owners outraged by the Clinton gun ban.  And upon taking the reins of the House, Speaker Gingrich said famously that, “As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.”

His promise didn’t hold up, however, and his GOA rating quickly dropped to well below the “C-level.”  In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the “gun free school zones act,” creating criminal safe zones like Virginia Tech, where the only person armed was a murderous criminal.  Speaker Newt Gingrich voted for the bill containing this ban.[1]

The same bill also contained the now infamous Lautenberg gun ban, which lowered the threshold for losing one’s Second Amendment rights to a mere misdemeanor.[2] Gun owners could, as a result of this ban, lose their gun rights forever for non-violent shouting matches that occurred in the home — and, in many cases, lose their rights without a jury trial.

While a legislator might sometimes vote for a spending bill which contains objectionable amendments, that was clearly NOT the case with Newt Gingrich in 1996.  Speaking on Meet the Press in September of that year, Speaker Gingrich said the Lautenberg gun ban was “a very reasonable position.”[3] He even refused to cosponsor a repeal of the gun ban during the next Congress — despite repeated requests to do so.[4]

Also in 1996, Speaker Gingrich cast his vote for an anti-gun terror bill which contained several harmful provisions.  For example, one of the versions he supported (in March of that year) contained a DeLauro amendment that would have severely punished gun owners for possessing a laser sighting device while committing an infraction as minor as speeding on a federal reservation.[5] (Not only would this provision have stigmatized laser sights, it would have served as a first step to banning these items.)  Another extremely harmful provision was the Schumer amendment to “centralize Federal, State and Local police.”[6]


Final passage of H.R. 3610, Sept. 28, 1996 at:  http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml . Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) warned his colleagues about the hidden dangers in H.R. 3610, and in regard to the Kohl ban, noted that it would “prohibit most persons from carrying unloaded firearms in their automobiles.”

See Gingrich’s vote at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml .

[3] Associated Press, “Gingrich Favors Handgun Ban for Domestic Abuse Convicts,” Deseret News, Sept. 16, 1996.  The full quote reveals how much Speaker Gingrich had adopted the anti-gunners’ line of thinking:  “I’m very much in favor of stopping people who engage in violence against their spouses from having guns,” the Georgia Republican said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think that’s a very reasonable position.”  But the fact that this gun ban covers misdemeanors in the home is primary evidence that NON-violent people have been subjected to lifetime gun bans for things like:  shouting matches, throwing a set of keys in the direction of another person, spanking a child, etc.

[4] See H.R.1009, “States’ Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 1997,” introduced by Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID).

H.R. 2703, March 14, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll066.xml .

S. 735, April 18, 1996 at:  http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll126.xml .

Both the above assessments are from Gun Owners of America

Clearly, neither candidate is a real friend of the Bill of Rights, and especially of the Second Amendment. Both are hell on taxes after all the whitewash has been removed. Both support the taking of fundamental rights away from people forever for less than felonious behaviors. Both believe in government running your personal day to day lives. Both are supporters of big government authoritarianism. Both are unacceptable, period…

Newtered; And the race tightens…

November 23, 2011

Newt Gingrich blew a hole completely through his foot. Again. Look candidates, illegal immigration is a major issue. Newt seems to think that pandering to a political correctness model that includes way too many people is an acceptable thing to do. I said it earlier this year that compromise with your fundamental values is not acceptable. This, combined with his half baked ideas about gun control, have made him an easy “NO” vote.

What will it take for these so-called “leaders” to figure out that we the people simply do not want a load of lawbreakers or their progeny here? Don’t we have enough home grown criminals?

What will it take for this same group of elites to figure out that we don’t want them messing with our fundamental and inalienable rights?

That is even when they, in their majesty, deem it to be for our very own good! We reserve certain things, such as the right to fail, unto our selves. Keep government out of our lives to the greatest extent possible while maintaining order and social discipline. Is that too much to ask..? It worked fairly well for most of our history.

Newts, political witchery and such…

November 22, 2011

From an email I received, and it is on target, no adjustments needed!

I know I don’t have to tell you, but politicians often say one thing but do the complete opposite — especially if they think no one is looking.

Newt Gingrich is the poster child for these sort of “flexible” principles.

I’ve been around the block a few times (I’m about to start my 20th year as a gun rights lobbyist) and dealt with literally thousands of candidates and politicians, but no Republican politician has managed to support and vote for anti-gun legislation and still proclaim that he is “pro-gun” more effectively than Newt Gingrich.

Don’t be fooled by his rise in the polls; Newt Gingrich has a long history of supporting gun control …

… and he has blatantly refused to return his National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey.

With more than three decades as a public figure, Newt is the quintessential political chameleon, shifting his views to reflect whatever is popular with the Washington, D.C. chattering class.

Make no mistake, while Newt may talk a solid conservative game, his record is that of a typical Inside-the-Beltway politician who will cut ANY compromise or make ANY deal with anyone for his own political or personal gain.

While Newt used the institutional gun lobby as a mouthpiece to convince millions of gun owners nationwide that “as long as he is Speaker, no gun-control legislation is going to move in committee or on the House floor,” he was working behind the scenes to pass gun control.

In 1996, Newt Gingrich turned his back on guns and voted for the anti-gun Brady Campaign’s Lautenberg Gun Ban, which strips the Second Amendment rights of citizens involved in misdemeanor domestic violence charges or temporary protection orders –- in some cases for actions as minor as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse’s wrist.(1)

Gingrich even called the anti-gun measure “reasonable,” and predicted that it would sail through his Republican-controlled House of Representatives with little trouble.(2)

The Lautenberg Gun Ban is one of the Congressional Republicans’ worst betrayals of gun owners, and those complicit in its passage deserve nothing but contempt from gun owners.

This gun control measure ranks right up there with the Brady Registration Act as the most aggressive gun control in America, denying hundreds of thousands of would-be gun owners the right to self defense.

Gingrich also stood shoulder to shoulder with Nancy Pelosi to pass the “Criminal Safezones Act” which prevents armed citizens from defending themselves in certain arbitrary locations. You and I both know that Criminal Safezones don’t protect law-abiding citizens, but actually protect the criminals who ignore them.(3)

As you can see, Newt Gingrich is no friend of gun owners, or small government conservatives. He simply can’t be trusted, and his record reflects his contempt not only for the truth, but his own integrity and the integrity of the very people he’s asking to vote for him to be the most powerful man in the modern world.

This is the same man who railed against the Obama bailouts of Fannie and Freddie Mac while receiving more than $1.5 million from Fannie Mae as a “consultant”(4) while his firm also raised $37 million to pass healthcare insurance mandates.(5)

 

He’s also the same man who sat next to Nancy Pelosi and insisted global warming was a man-made problem in need of a government-mandated solution. Now that he’s running for the Republican nomination, he doesn’t believe in global warming and calls the TV ad he did with Pelosi “inexplicable.” Please click here to watch the video.(6)

I’m concerned, though, that Newt’s snake-oil act is catching on.

It’s time for gun owners and liberty-minded, small government activists to hold Newt’s feet to the fire.

That’s why I need you to call the Gingrich campaign headquarters right now at (678) 973-2306. Demand that Newt Gingrich apologize for his past support of gun control, and make a dramatic turnaround statement of support to repeal the gun controls he’s supported.

Tell his campaign that you expect Newt to not only apologize for his past support of anti-gun measures but also to reveal where he stands on international gun grabs like the UN “Small Arms Treaty” and domestic anti-gun schemes like the banning of .50 caliber rifles.

Demand he quit stonewalling gun owners and return his National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey — at once. You and I both know that election season, when they’re begging for the votes of gun owners, is one of the best times to lobby candidates and politicians.

With Republican presidential primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina mere weeks away, it’s vital that gun owners know where the Republican candidates for President stand on important Second Amendment issues.

Newt’s record is as crooked as a dog’s hind leg. With a horrible voting record on Second Amendment issues, gun owners just don’t know which side Newt’s on.

Please call the Gingrich campaign headquarters right now at (678) 973-2306. Demand that Newt Gingrich apologize for his past support of gun control.

For Freedom,

 

signature

Dudley Brown

Executive Director

 

P.S. Newt Gingrich’s anti-gun record is too important — and dangerous — to ignore. That’s why I felt compelled to inform you.

His support for numerous gun controls is in direct contradiction to his current campaign statements.

Call the Gingrich campaign headquarters right now at (678) 973-2306. Demand that Newt Gingrich apologize for his past support of gun control.

The National Association for Gun Rights is working day and night to keep gun owners like you up-to-date on the presidential candidates’ records — please consider contributing to the effort by chipping in $15 or $20.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml

Associated Press, “Gingrich Favors Handgun Ban for Domestic Abuse Convicts,” Deseret News, Sept. 16, 1996.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml

http://www.freep.com/article/20111117/NEWS07/111170448/Newt-Gingrich-paid-least-1-5-million-consulting-Freddie-Mac-official-says

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gingrich-think-tank-collected-millions-from-health-care-industry/2011/11/16/gIQAcd72VN_print.html

The National Association for Gun Rights is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, single-purpose citizens’ organization dedicated to preserving and protecting the Constitutionally protected right-to-keep-and-bear-arms through an aggressive program designed to mobilize public opposition to anti-gun legislation. The National Association for Gun Rights’ mailing address is P.O 7002, Fredericksburg, VA 22404. They can be contacted toll-free at 1-877-405-4570. Its web address is http://www.NationalGunRights.org/

Not produced or e-mailed at taxpayer expense.

To help the National Association for Gun Rights grow, please forward this to a friend.

To view this email as a web page, please click this link: view online.

Help fight gun control. Donate to the National Association for Gun Rights!

NAGR

Newt Gingrich on Guns: A Mixed Record

November 10, 2011

Prior to the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia had earned an A rating with Gun Owners of America. But that all changed in 1995, after Republicans were swept to power and Gingrich became Speaker of the House.

The Republicans gained the majority, thanks in large part to gun owners outraged by the Clinton gun ban. And upon taking the reins of the House, Speaker Gingrich said famously that, “As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.”

His promise didn’t hold up, however, and his GOA rating quickly dropped like a lead sinker to a “D.” In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the “gun free school zones act,” creating criminal safe zones like Virginia Tech, where the only person armed was a murderous criminal. Speaker Newt Gingrich voted for the bill containing this ban.1

The same bill also contained the now infamous Lautenberg gun ban, which lowered the threshold for losing one’s Second Amendment rights to a mere misdemeanor.2 Gun owners could, as a result of this ban, lose their gun rights forever for non-violent shouting matches that occurred in the home — and, in many cases, lose their rights without a jury trial.

While a legislator might sometimes vote for a spending bill which contains objectionable amendments, that was clearly NOT the case with Newt Gingrich in 1996. Speaking on Meet the Press in September of that year, Speaker Gingrich said the Lautenberg gun ban was “a very reasonable position.”3 He even refused to cosponsor a repeal of the gun ban during the next Congress — despite repeated requests to do so.4

Also in 1996, Speaker Gingrich cast his vote for an anti-gun terror bill which contained several harmful provisions. For example, one of the versions he supported (in March of that year) contained a DeLauro amendment that would have severely punished gun owners for possessing a laser sighting device while committing an infraction as minor as speeding on a federal reservation.5 (Not only would this provision have stigmatized laser sights, it would have served as a first step to banning these items.) Another extremely harmful provision was the Schumer amendment to “centralize Federal, State and Local police.”6

 

 


[1] Final passage of H.R. 3610, Sept. 28, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml . Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) warned his colleagues about the hidden dangers in H.R. 3610, and in regard to the Kohl ban, noted that it would “prohibit most persons from carrying unloaded firearms in their automobiles.”

[2] See Gingrich’s vote at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml .

[3] Associated Press, “Gingrich Favors Handgun Ban for Domestic Abuse Convicts,” Deseret News, Sept. 16, 1996. The full quote reveals how much Speaker Gingrich had adopted the anti-gunners’ line of thinking: “I’m very much in favor of stopping people who engage in violence against their spouses from having guns,” the Georgia Republican said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think that’s a very reasonable position.” But the fact that this gun ban covers misdemeanors in the home is primary evidence that NON-violent people have been subjected to lifetime gun bans for things like: shouting matches, throwing a set of keys in the direction of another person, spanking a child, etc.

[4] See H.R.1009, “States’ Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 1997,” introduced by Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID).

[5] H.R. 2703, March 14, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll066.xml .

[6] S. 735, April 18, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll126.xml .

SOURCE

Will we be left with yet again holding our noses as we cast our votes..? Herman Cain‘s 999 plan will in fact raise taxes on virtually all Americans. That’s a really big no no for me. Romney is yet another RINO that would make the epic failure obama a shoe in if he were to run with Romney as his V. P. pick. Cain is also a suspect when it comes to being a closet gun grabber. Rick Perry has no real plan to deal with the invasion across our southern border, a deal breaker for me. Bachman needs to grow up politically. Ron Paul… is Ron Paul, what else can I say? Too be blunt, I have no use for Santorum, or any of the others, and in fact believe that they would be dangerous if placed into high office.

Still, I have to be considered a charter member of ABO, the anyone but obama group. Beyond that, the epic failure just might get reelected. To that end it is of utmost importance that we Conservatives and Libertarians see to it that both the Senate and House are solidly out of the hands of the Communist/Democrat/Progressive’s that are hell bent on destroying these United States. Election 2012 will, I believe, mark a turning point in American politics for years to come. Gary Nolan, a founder of the Libertarian Party, marked this election that way years ago while speaking at the Colorado convention. Something to do with election / political cycles.

Granted, no candidate is ever “perfect.” But compromising is simply not on the table when your core values are on the line. I say that along the lines of Barry Goldwater and it is a very good policy to follow. That takes a sort of moral courage that is, in reality, possessed by few people…

 

The Great Society

October 17, 2011

There are always social experiments going on. That said, most are flops. Social engineering just doesn’t work. At least when it is based in the political correctness of the day. One of the biggest failures in more recent times would be Lyndon Johnson‘s destructive socialist program known as “The Great Society.” This creation and expansion of the welfare state has caused, for the most part, the exact opposite of what it was meant to eliminate.

The epic failure obama’s attempt to wreck havoc upon America via obamacare, operation fast and furious, and pure Chicago style cronyism are extensions of that failed experiment. An exercise in repeating the same operation and expecting a different outcome are hallmarks of socialism and communistic thinking.

This macroeconomic success owed nothing to policymakers’ fine tuning, because neither the administration nor Congress made such delicate adjustments of fiscal policy as conditions changed. In truth, the U.S. government was institutionally incapable of fine tuning fiscal policy, however much it appealed to Keynesian economists drawing diagrams on blackboards.

Full Story

Now we have obama’s foot soldiers staging occupations here, there, and everywhere blaming America and our way of life for their own failures. They remind me of children saying “not me” when confronted about something that has gone wrong. Rather than rolling up their sleeves and doing something that is actually productive themselves they stage protests that ultimately result in more government, more rules, and less personal freedom.

The United States of America. Land of the free. That includes the freedom to fail. Home of the brave. Courage, to take on the task of personal wealth creation without having government getting involved in that task so long as we do not infringe on the freedoms and liberty of others while doing that.

Of mice, men, and politics

August 5, 2008

A viable new political party is often the subject at hand, all, or in part at various blogs such as Stiff Right Jab, TexasFreds, and here. This would be a serious, and difficult undertaking. I worked for ballot access here in Colorado, and it was difficult to say the least. That would be just one of many problems that would have to be overcome when establishing a serious alternative to the present situation. Certainly one should look to the past to learn about the things that would lay the ground work. Below is from the Patriot Post. It is worth the read…

PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE

Demonomic deja vu

By Mark Alexander

The current “change” in economic policy, as proposed by the latest protagonist of Leftist ideology, can best be summed up in the inimitable words of that great philosopher Yogi Berra: “It’s deja vu all over again.”

Politicos come and go, but the essential philosophical divergence between conservatives and liberals remains as stark today as ever. That disparity is most evident in how conservatives and liberals have always viewed the role of government, and its policies concerning taxation, spending and regulation.

While one may correctly argue that the majority of elected Republicans do not justly honor the conservative principles set forth in the Republican Party Platform, the majority of Democrats certainly march in lockstep behind their Leftist despots, and their electoral lemmings are close behind. (As George Bernard Shaw once noted, “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul.”)

So what informs the two distinctly different visions from the Right and Left?

Essentially, conservatives, as the root word implies, strive to conserve the principles outlined in our Constitution, and our vision for America requires robust support for individual liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, national defense and traditional Judeo-Christian values.

On the other hand, the Left one, liberals, as the root word implies, aspire to liberate the nation from its founding tenets by promoting a “Living Constitution,” as a primary tool for constricting individual liberty, expanding the power of government, regulating all manner of enterprise, gutting national defense and advocating relativism.

Conservative economic policies are founded on the ideals of liberty and freedom advocated in the historic writings of Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say and John Stuart Mill, and further refined by such economists as Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, and most recently, the late Milton Friedman. Economic liberty is embodied in the practice of free-enterprise capitalism, which functions best if largely unconstrained by government taxation and regulation.

These are the economic principles advocated by our founders.

As James Madison described it in his era: “[I]f industry and labour are left to take their own course, they will generally be directed to those objects which are the most productive, and this in a more certain and direct manner than the wisdom of the most enlightened legislature could point out.”

Madison certainly understood the threat of centralized government power, writing in Federalist No. 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.” Madison noted further, “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.”

Anti-federalist Thomas Jefferson similarly observed: “Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread. …[W]hen all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another.” He noted correctly, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”

Jefferson was clear on his disdain for taxes: “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

But the Left adheres to a very different group of economic philosophers.

Barack Hussein Obama’s economic plan is nothing more than a remake of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s class-warfare proclamation: “Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.”

In fact, Roosevelt’s “principle” was no more American than Obama’s. Not to be confused with the biblical principle in the Gospel according to Luke, “From everyone who has been given much, much will be required…” (which, ironically, some Leftist do-gooders cite as justification for socialist policies), Roosevelt was essentially paraphrasing the gospel according to Karl Marx, whose maxim declared, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

Jesus used parables to enlighten the heart, in this case, about our personal responsibility. Marxist methods are a bit more coercive—rejecting God and anointing the state as the supreme deity.

Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev said of Roosevelt’s “New Deal” paradigm shift, “We can’t expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.”

Perennial Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas (the grandfather, incidentally, of Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas), echoed that sentiment: “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

We are much closer to that day in 2008.

Obama insists we have “an economy that is out of balance, tax policies have been badly skewed, and wages and incomes have flatlined.” To resolve this he says we need a “tax policy making sure that everybody benefits, fair distribution, a restoration of balance in our tax code, money allocated fairly—we’re going to capture some of the nation’s economic growth… and reinvest it.”

Obama says that free enterprise is nothing more than “Social Darwinism, every man or woman for him or herself… tempting idea, because it doesn’t require much thought or ingenuity.”

Obamanomics is nothing more than a Marxist echo, and Obama himself a “useful idiot,” a Western apologist for socialist political and economic agendas advocating Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism.

Obama’s campaign theme, like that of all useful idiots before him, is built on “The Politics of Disparity,” class warfare.

Between now and Election Day, Obama will be faking right and looking centrist. He has been invoking his version of another Yogi Berra witticism, “I didn’t really say everything I said.”

Of course, Yogi also said, “You can observe a lot just by watchin’.” In deference our great national heritage and our Founder’s legacy of liberty, one would only hope that a majority of voting Americans are sufficiently observant to see through Obama’s deception.

(To compare U.S. tax tables since the implementation of the federal income tax in 1913, see Tax History 1913-2008. The Patriot also offers a comparison between the FairTax, Income Tax and Flat Tax. For additional constitutional context, read “To secure these rights…” on The Bill of Rights and A “Living Constitution for a Dying Republic”. For additional resources, see The Patriot’s Topical Essays and Policy Papers page and our Historic Documents page.)