Follow by Email

There was an error in this gadget

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Simply voting out Obama is not the solution

June 30, 2011
Mike Shaner


The more I debate with so called conservatives, the more alarmed I become. Too many feel that simply not electing President Obama will solve all of the country's problems. This is a very dangerous sentiment. Replacing Obama with a clone who happens to have an R in front of his name isn't a solution.

I have heard far too many people say that we should all unite behind the Republican nominee no matter who he is. Many have suggested that the only criteria for nominating the candidate should be electability. I find this attitude to be not only puzzling, but downright frightening!

Nominating a big government Republican diminishes the brand of conservatism, perpetuates government meddling, and leaves the electorate without a choice.

If Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, or Michele Bachmann win the nomination, the best thing that could happen to the elephant party would be for Obama to win re-election.

George W. Bush did more to harm the name of conservatism in 8 years than Democrats have done in 150 years. Most people blame Obama for the massive corporate bailouts but it was Bush who signed TARP into law. Many chastise Obama for the government takeover of healthcare but it was G.W. who signed the Prescription Drug Bill. He also initiated a massive federal takeover of education with No Child Left Behind, got us into two wars, and signed the so-called Patriot Act into law.

Is it any wonder that after 8 years people were confused about what conservatism stood for? Is it a surprise that Bush did such harm to the brand that Democrats took over both houses of Congress, and people dying for "hope and change" elected a radical leftist as president?

This is why I find it incomprehensible that intelligent people would consider nominating Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, or  Mitt Romney.

Bachmann talks a conservative game but her record indicates it's just lip service. She is a former tax collector for Pete's sake! In some ways I find her to be the most disingenuous of the bunch. In public she pays great homage to the constitution but she chose to completely disregard the 4th amendment in favor of supporting the so called patriot act.

Michelle Bachmann claims to be a fiscal hawk who would reign in spending, yet she was the beneficiary of nearly $300,000 in state and federal subsidies. She is also a Keynesian who supported TARP.

In regards to foreign policy she is an established Chicken-Hawk who supported both the Afghan and Iraq wars. Is she slightly less evil than Obama, Romney, or perry? Perhaps, but the lesser evil is still evil.

Romney is the architect of Obama-Care for Pete's sake! He argues that health care is a state issue and that he would never support it on the federal level. It is encouraging that Mr. Romney pretends to consider the 10th Amendment but the fact that he believes it is the role of any government to force citizens to purchase a good or service is appalling. That he believes any government has a right to steal from citizen A and provide for Citizen B speaks volumes and that he believes any government can provide such a service better than the private sector screams even louder.

If Mitt Romney is elected as President of the United States it will be one of the greatest things to ever happen to both the Democratic and Libertarian parties. Unfortunately it will come at the expense of both the Republican party and the United States.

The only thing equal to the devastation of a Romney administration would be a Perry administration. It is astonishing how short political memories can be. It wasn't too long ago that Rick Perry was heading up Al Gore’s Campaign. Yes, Al Gore!

When the political tide began to turn so did Governor Perry. Apparently he found religion, switched parties, and became Mr. Conservative. The only problem is, he isn't.

According to a case study by the American Stewards of Liberty, Gov. Perry endorsed confiscating nearly 500,000 privately owned acres in order to build toll roads to benefit China and Mexico.

No one could stop the Trans-Texas Corridor.  It had the aggressive backing of Governor Rick Perry, the full support of the Texas Department of Transportation (the largest state agency in the nation), and was internationally backed by Cintra-Zachary.  This $80 billion project was on a fast pace to connect the Chinese owned Mexican seaports with Canada, that is, until these five courageous towns and their school districts invoked coordination and took a stand equal in spirit to the Alamo, but with a much better result -- Texans won.

It isn't only land theft that Perry likes to deal in, he like Obama, Romney, and fellow Texan G.W. Bush, also believe government has a role to play in delivering healthcare.

Actually, Perry pushes the envelope even further, the others only want to force us to buy insurance, Perry actually believes it is the role of government to force children to take certain (possibly dangerous) medications.

According to conservativebyte.com, Governor Perry bypassed the state legislature and issued an executive order "making Texas the first state to require that schoolgirls get vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer."

The article goes on to state that "Perry also directed state health authorities to make the vaccine available free to girls 9 to 18 who are uninsured or whose insurance does not cover vaccines. In addition, he ordered that Medicaid offer Gardasil to women ages 19 to 21."


The plethora of rights violated here are too numerous to list but a quick run down would be: The taxpayer who is forced to pay for the "free drugs," The child who is being forced to consume something they may have no desire or need for and which could actually cause them harm, and the parents, who should have the final say as to when to discuss such personal matters as STD's with their children.

Talk about your nanny state! Governor Perry believes it is the role of government to be parent, doctor, and social worker to the children of Texas. What would he do with an entire country and a printing press full of money!


Despite all of this Romney, still leads in most mainstream polls and Perry is climbing fast. The nation fell victim to a smooth talking politician in 2008 and it is still questionable if we can recover from that.

If it happens again from what is supposed to be the opposition party, the results could be catastrophic.

It is time for the electorate to wake up. The President's job is to defend the Constitution of the United States. Look at your candidates record. Are their any inconsistencies? We can no longer afford to waste a vote on someone simply because he may look good in a suit or sound good on a stage.

It is important to remember that simply replacing Obama will do nothing. We must replace him with someone who displays character through adversity, who does what is right even when he is made to look foolish for doing so. Simply changing the wrapping paper from blue to red does not change the value of what's in the box.

We need someone who will defend liberty, the Constitution, and individual rights. So far I have seen one person who offers a true alternative. He too is a Texan, as a Dr. he delivered over 4,000 babies.

As a Congressman, he has been elected to 12 terms and has never voted for a tax increase nor voted to expand government into our private lives.


He is the only candidate in the election to have served in the military, the only one who has ever received an endorsement from Ronald Reagan, and in 2008 Ron Paul earned more campaign contributions from active duty military members than all other candidates combined.

You may have heard he is crazy, too old, an isolationist, or even unelectable. The establishment is terrified of this man and they will say anything to keep you from taking him seriously. I admit Dr. Paul is not for everyone, he isn't a smooth talker, and he's 75 years old, but as my good friend Carl Jones said:

If you don't like Ron Paul, that's fine. Everyone has that right, but don't say "I agree with the founding father's, but disagree with Ron Paul." It's not possible.

If you want a smooth talking politician in office you might as well vote for Obama.

If you want someone who will not cower to the lobbyist and special interest groups and has three decades worth of voting records to prove it, you're only option is Ron Paul.



Other Stories you may like:

The classic liberal and traditional conservative



A call to arms: Tyranny and Nullification


Also visit the Ron Paul Page

 






Please leave a comment, subscribe to the blog, and share it with a friend. Follow me on twitter @ csawordsmith, I'll be on Facebook here, and Linkedin here. Together we can take back our community, take back our state, and take back our Republic. Let the Revolution begin!