Check out my organization's website

Hi. Sorry for not posting anything for a while. I have been busy writing articles for my new website: http://www.restoreamericaslegacy.com.

It is a new political organization aimed at representing Young Americans as well as promoting the five core principles that have made this country the strongest and most prosperous country in the world. It is five core principles that President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid flat out reject and are trying very hard to move the country away from.

I will start posting again in the next couple days.

Thanks

Obama's Ideal Model of Good Government is crumbling: the EU

The policies of President Obama and the Democratic Party are those of the left-wing parties of the Europe. Obama's Healthcare Plan was to be the Universal Healthcare coverage system of Great Britain. His ideas for new taxes are similar to those of France, Italy, and elsewhere. Tax the income, profits, and inheritance of the rich, impose a value-added tax, and tax carbon emissions. His fiscal policy of spending our way out of economic recession, massive debts, and expanded mandatory spending programs is almost identical to every European country, like Greece for example.

President Obama seems to think we should be more like Europe. The problem is this center-right country is comprised mostly of selfish, intolerant, knuckle-dragging rednecks that cling to their guns and religion. But after 2008, he and his liberal-socialist allies had a chance to change all that and transform this country into another European Union.

We can now see where that leads.

Greece is on the verge of defaulting on its bonds and declaring the equivalent of national bankruptcy. Portugal and Spain have had their credit ratings reduced this week. Nearly every European country has massive national debts, high unemployment, low economic growth, and powerful public labor unions that have all but paralyzed government attempts to solve the fiscal problems.

Sound familiar? It should, I could've easily been talking about California or Illinois.

The European Union is in decline economically and politically. Its influence in the world has been in steady decline for years, its economy has been stagnant, and its fiscal problems are finally about to erupt. Many experts speculate we may be witnessing the end of the Euro currency and a collapse of the European Union as a whole.

Well, its a global recession right? Not really. China, India, Brazil, and Indonesia are seeing positive growth. They have recovered. China projects growth this year at 8-9%. So as the United States and European Union continue to drown in debt and see growth of less than 1%, other countries are growing. We can safely conclude that the US and EU are seeing their massive lead in the world economy and world politics shrink rapidly.

So who should we look to? China? Brazil? Well maybe. These countries don't have a great deal in common though. They do have lower taxes on corporations, no massive entitlement programs, low debt, and business-friendly labor laws.

Meanwhile we are doing the opposite. More taxes on corporations, new entitlement programs, more debt, and stricter labor laws.

One can see the contrast within the United States as well. Should we be adopting the same policies as our own states of California and Illinois? That is what Obama and the Democrats seem to be doing. Who should we be following?

The answer: Texas, Oklahoma, and Alaska. Low tax burdens, business-friendly conditions, small deficits, no big entitlement programs, and they are seeing unemployment rates much lower than the national rate of 9.7%. They are actually growing while the rest of the country is stagnant.

The answer is right in front of us.

President Obama is following a failed model. The European Union is on the verge of collapse, the euro is about to vanish, and the continent will soon shatter into disarray and might shift back to its historic roots of nationalistic rivalries and arms races.

The United States needs to adopt a new model. And fast.

More on the Tea Party: Not Radicals

This is from my Princeton Fox Blog, so it is more directed at Northeasterners. Here is what I have observed as contrasts between places like Illinois, North Carolina with New Jersey:

I am frankly surprised at the misconceptions and total lack of knowledge that New Jerseyans have of the Tea Party. It is clear the media, journalists, and others have successfully written them off as radicals, racists, and revolutionaries. And you have bought it.

The Tea Party Platform
The Tea Party is a loose confederation of conservatives, libertarians, concerned citizens, unaffiliated voters, conservative democrats, and independents. These groups may have their own top issues or most important agenda items but there are three main common themes:

1. Limited Government (in both power and dollars)
2. Individual Freedom (protections for religion, speech, right to bare arms, states' rights)
3. Free markets (strong rejection of socialism)

Gallup surveys showed the Tea Party's demographics are fairly mainstream. In other words, they are not All-White, All-rich, All-Christian, All-Republican, or All anything.

So really what makes them tick? The massive growth in government spending, the national debt, the increase in government power in areas of the banking sector, finance, healthcare, student loans, and automobiles. This political event alone is what awakened them. And I say awakened for a reason.

Gallup has also consistently shown this is a center-right country, 40% identify themselves as conservatives and other polls show that 50% or more have fiscally conservative views. Only about 26-29% of people identify themselves as liberal. And yet the Democrats won 255 of 435 seats in the House, and 60 of the 100 seats of the Senate. Obama won with 53% of the vote. How is this possible? Why is it that the Republicans don't dominate American politics???

The Awakening of the Right Wing
Like I said, this conservative side has only recently awakened. There is a segment of conservatives that don't vote because they regard both parties as essentially the same (and have a good case for it). However, the political battles and divergence of policies between the two parties in the last year and a half has changed that sentiment and "awakened" this segment. In other words, Obama's left-wing agenda awakened them. Had he practiced some moderation in his policy proposals, this movement might've remained asleep.

Another segment of the Tea Partiers simply don't vote because they don't feel their vote really makes a difference. Most of this type are not politically active at all. They have these beliefs but would rather keep to themselves and keep their beliefs to themselves. They have been convinced by televisions, movies, and other media that their beliefs are radical fringe right-wing ideas and that they would be ridiculed if they got more vocal of them.

Another segment is the far-right wing. They are a very small group, probably about 5-8% of the total population. They are militias, Christian Fundamentalists, most of them probably racist, and are in many respects anarchists. They may align themselves with the Tea Party, but a vast majority of the other groups in the Tea Party regard these people as crazy, just like the rest of the country.

The final segment, the largest, are disenchanted Republicans and fiscal conservatives that felt their party failed them and did not vote in 2008. This group is the most politically active in general, vote often, but this changed due to Republican failures in 2005-2007. They stopped identifying themselves as Republicans and expressed utter frustration with their party and the country as a whole. this segment was likely to awaken regardless of how leftist Obama's agenda was. It is the combination of this group with the others that give the Tea Party tremendous potential. They are reaching into populations of non-voters and even unregistered voters. Not to mention the fact that Independents are steadily realizing that the Tea Party reflects their ideas in regards to the deficit and government spending.

So, are they racist? Maybe 1 in 20 has white supremacist beliefs, AT THE MOST.
Are they anarchists? No, not even close.
Do they advocate overthrow of the government? No
Are they Christian Evangelicals or Fundamentalists? Many of them are, but none of the issues they are demonstrating for are related to religious or social issues. Sometimes yes, but like I said government power and spending are at the top of the list.

And it is important to note, the Tea Party is steadily growing. Gallup and other surveys show that more Americans consider themselves part of the movement in comparison to three months ago.

So what is their objective?
The slogan most often heard at Tea Parties is "Remember in November". A political protest and demonstration that wants to increase energy AND VOTE. What a bunch of psychos right? They are supporting candidates, donating money, hell they are voting in record numbers! MY GOD, they are going to tear this country down!!! They are critical of a Black President! Surely they are racists!!! By that logic, a Black President is infallible.

A Cautionary Note for Northeasterners
Most Americans do not live within 100 miles of New York or Washington. Most Americans do not get their news from the Big 3, or CNN, or MSNBC. Most Americans are not afraid of guns. Most Americans are not afraid of God or Christians. Whatever sophistication or education level you have achieved, remember you are in the minority and if you fail to take movements like the Tea Party seriously, you will remain in the minority in a sort of hyper-urbanized bubble of the East Coast from DC up to Boston. You are a minority and I think its time you do a MUCH better job understanding the rest of the country and their beliefs because in my experience in New Jersey there is a poor level of understanding.

Self-identified Republicans and moderate conservatives in the Northeast seem to be somewhat elitist and arrogant similar to liberal democrats. That must change. Not only Republicans but Northeasterners in general because last I checked the Census projects Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania will be losing electoral votes to Texas, Utah, and Georgia.

Its time to make a better effort to understand the rest of the country. Because there are more of them than you, and in November, more of them will win election to the House and Senate while Democrats will likely still dominate the Northeast.

Chicago Tax Day Tea Party

It was an interesting week. Tea Party protests went on in every city and some in the media decided the story was that some of them were not as big as last year. Nevermind the fact that there were probably more protests than last year. I got to attend the Chicago Protest in Daley Plaza the epicenter of the Democratic Party Machine.

It was a group that likely exceeded one thousand, filling most, if not all of the plaza. All this in probably one of the five most liberal democratic cities in the country. There were tons of posters, flags, colonial hats, and of course a couple party crashers. An anti-war protest tried to butt in with a banner indicating war is the biggest wasteful spending. In another oddity, a professionally printed and distributed sign said war makes up 57% of the budget, something that is VERY off. Defense spending is roughly $600 billion (less than 20% of the budget). Just goes to show that liberal protestors feel that any and all strategms, including blatant lies, are morally justified as long as the ends are just. It includes infiltrating non-liberal protests with inflammatory and idiotic signs and chants. The ends justify the means. Truly sad.

Others said No to war, and there were a couple signs that were anti-semitic, blaming Israel for all the problems of the world. Tea Party organizers and fellow protestors confronted these people asking them why they were there and arguing that the protest had nothing to do with either issue. Instead of physical confrontation, which is a common result of battles with left wing protestors and "anti-war" activists, a couple of people made signs indicating "plant" or "liberal" or "NOT part of the Tea Party". They stood next to these infiltrators with their own signs so that any idiot CNN or MSNBC camera would catch both the silly sign and the sign indicating the Tea Party Movement has nothing to do with it.

Earlier, a man was walking around with a giant swastika on a poster. The sight disgusted many, Chicago Police asked him to leave, at least I believe that is what happened. I had to leave to meet friends at the train station and bring them back to the Plaza. Either way, that guy was not there when we returned.

The speakers included a former gubanatorial candidate, five candidates for Congress, a couple activists, a doctor, a health insurance salesman, and the two individuals that were accosted by a CNN reporter over a year ago at a similar protest. That incident probably did more for the Tea Party than any other of these major BS media stories.

There were posters responding "we are NOT racist" or "I don't give a ___ that Obama is Black, it scares me to death that he is RED". The speeches were about government spending, taxes, corruption, greed, and the various offenses to the Constitution that President Obama and other Democratic leaders are responsible for.

There were no Neo-Nazis, no Klan members, no one advocating that all illegals should be rounded up and kicked out, no one calling Obama a fascist but plenty calling him a socialist, this was a regular political protest with nothing radical to speak of. No one called for revolution or violent overthrow of the government, much to the disappointment of Bill Clinton. His "fear" of these anti-government protests is really just fear that Democrats will lose power in November.

One of the speakers had an interesting comment: When asked by a reporter what the Tea Party was, where is its website, and who is its' leader, this woman laughed answering "we are not some top-down movement with some sort of demi-god at its head. This is as grassroots as you can get, decentralized, spread out, and very large. No professionally made signs, no corporate or political money bringing us together. In fact, if any insurance companies were paying these protestors, she feinted anger that she didn't get a check."

Sorry to disappoint democrats, socialists, liberals, and others out there. No crazies. This is a legitimate and mainstream political protest that is large in scale and threatens to completely destroy the Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate in November. Should it continue, President Obama has little chance of re-election. Even now his job approval has been consistently below 50% for over a month now. A Healthcare Reform and Nuclear Treaty failed to create any momentum.

The Tea Party is a rejection of a large federal government, taxes, encroachment on individual rights, and the attempted takeover of the economy. It sometimes ventures into other issues but this is its core, if one existed. Nothing racist, nothing radical, no revolutionary themes, actually it is the opposite. It is a counter-revolutionary theme in direct opposition to the dramatic changes President Obama and Democrats have attempted to bring to us. It is rooted in the Constitution, the beliefs and writings of the founders, and the conservative principles that have been around the whole time.

This is different than the right-wing of the Bush Presidency. This is not driven by Evangelicals or a desire to change the world. This is more focused on the United States itself, its very Foundation, and the future of the political system that was formed 230 years ago. It is actually more conservative in that sense than Bush or his Evangelical Base. It is likely larger and can reach into virtually every state in the Union (as opposed to the more Christian Fundamentalist regions of the country).

It is grassroots, decentralized, and unguided by any political elite. Its as American as you can get really. Will it succeed? Will it lead to change in November? The evidence strongly suggests yes. This is still a center-right country and this rejection of the Government policies of the past three to five years was, in many ways, inevitable.

The United States today

This is the United States today. Today, a corporation is required to make filings with the SEC regarding its business decisions and outlook that directly affect shareholders. If you say something in that SEC filing that is contrary to what the U.S. Government wants, you just might be called to Washington D.C. to testify as well as make available e-mails, memos, and internal papers on the subject.

This is our country today. If a private corporation makes a government filing that does not support government policy or make it "look good", you are in trouble. And to all other private corporations that are considerng making such filings and God forbid, tell the truth in them, you might want to think about what the government wants, their interest, because in the end it is the federal government's interests that are most important, not yours and not the shareholders.

This is in reference ot the news that the executives of AT&T are being called to testify in front of Henry Waxman's Committee about a recent SEC filing that stated they will be re-evaluating their healthcare benefit programs of their employees and retirees as a result of the recent legislation.

In the United States today, if you want to go to college it is going to cost thousands and thousands of dollars. If you want loans to help pay for it, you will need to go to the federal government. They now control the entire student loan industry. They have positions in numerous large banks, they have control of the Federal Reserve of course. In short, if you want a loan, credit, or money in general you will have to get it from the federal government.

In the United States today, it is important for the President of the United States to give his full opinion on Supreme Court decisions and criticize the Justices on national television if necessary. These are Justices that serve on the Court for life, are not beholden to voters, and certainly not beholden to the President. In some bizarre world, the opinion of the President matters to the Supreme Court, the executive branch has the right to go after the judicial branch.

In the United States today, any reference to God or Christianity is a clear endorsement and establishment of a State Religion. You can't call it Good Friday, its Spring Holiday. Its not Merry Christmas, its Happy Holidays. If the word God is anywhere on Government document, engraved on a wall or statue, or mentioned in the pledge of allegiance - it is bad. This country must take the initiative to eliminate all symbols of religion from the country out of fear of it magically establishing a State Religion, or offending someone somewhere, and to make this country atheist as soon as possible.

This is the United States. If there is anywhere one has the right to offend one another it is here. It is what Free Speech and Free Religion directly involves. You are allowed to practice these things regardless of who it offends. That is the point. Many came here because these activities offended someone in their home country. This country is not atheist, it was not founded by atheists, and the Founders certainly did not want to establish an atheist country.

This is expansion of government power and control of private citizens and individuals, control of all money, and the suppression of a person's right to exercise their religion, and for people to acknowledge that in this country there are Christians and that those Christians have holidays and our calendars reflect that. Instead of pretending religion does not exist, we should fully acknowledge these facts and also realize that this in no way is a declaration of some endorsement of a State Religion. These symbols have been present for 230 years and yet we still do NOT have a State Religion.

Of course, none of this matters. In ten years or less, we will be bankrupt. The economy will be in ruins, we will retreat from the world, and our role as a global power will be extinguished.

When it comes to Nuclear Disarmament: Obama can't compete with Bush

Few will remember the Moscow Treaty, negotiated around 2002. At the time, the United States and Russia had about 6000-7000 deployed operational nuclear warheads. The treaty, negotiated between Bush and Putin required that both countries reduce the number of deployed, operational warheads to about 2200-2600 warheads.

Liberals and main-stream media did not talk about it, and when they did, they argued it was pointless considering Russia could take the warheads offline and put them in reserve, then just bring them back up to operational status if necessary. Bush could do the same. It did not require actual dismantling of weapons.

Well Bush went farther. He not only lowered the number of US operational warheads from 6000 to 2200, he also ordered the reserve warheads dismantled and eliminated. Wow, this from a President that was such a warmongeror!!!!

What does Obama accomplish this week? He will lower the number of US operational warheads from 2200 to 1500-1600. Wow, and the media and others all think this is such a ground-breaking agreement. Bush lowers our operational force by over 4000 warheads, Obama gets rid of 600. Bush gets Putin to reduce his operational force by 4000-5000 warheads. Obama is getting 600. Wow. What would we do about Russia if it weren't for Obama. We were on the path to confrontation clearly under that madman Bush.

Why is it that the most assertive and "warmongering" Presidents get the greatest results in terms of peace and disarmament? Reagan's election saw the release of hostages from Iran, and he placed tremendous pressure on the Soviet Union. His VP continued that pressure and we saw the end of the Soviet Union and the Fall of the Berlin Wall.

Under Clinton, India and Pakistan become nuclear powers. North Korea gets the uranium necessary to build their first nuclear weapon.

Under Carter, our ally, the Shah, fell and a radical fundamentalist regime took over. The new regime took hostages that Carter could not get released in over a year. Under Kennedy, the Soviet Union decides to put nuclear missiles in Cuba after meeting the man. Granted, Kennedy did a superb job in dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis, but we got their because the Soviets perceived weakness.

A pattern has emerged. The main-strem media, as well as the liberal establishment knows nothing about actual disarmament and maintaining international peace.

President Obama has done nothing but take a teaspoon out of the bucket, while Bush almost empties it completely during his term. I did not know this until I read about it in the Weekly Standard. It is just more evidence that we need to go beyond the headlines to learn the truth.

Obama backs U.S. away from Israel: what it could mean

Obama's recent remarks and actions suggest the United States is trying to put some distance between itself and Israel in terms of their relationship. This is almost unprecedented. Obama, thus far, is the least friendly American President to Israel since Carter, a borderline anti-semite. Prime Minister Netanyahu returned to Israel and convened the Cabinet to figure out what to make of all this.

Imagine you are Prime Minister Netanyahu. You are the head of the Likud Party, the more nationalist and assertive party while your opposition is the more dovish and prefers a soft-handed approach. You got to power because of your record on security and tough rhetoric. You have been rebuffed by the American President, your closest ally and the most important foreign policy item. You have returned with no agreement, a behind closed doors meeting, which is a humiliation. To not have a public talk or a press conference alongside the American President demonstrates that Israel is no longer considered the close ally of the United States.

The settlements in Jerusalem is a central part of your domestic policy. There is no compromise on that, you cannot back down. Your own party would fire you if you agreed to Obama's demands that settlements stop being built in East Jersualem, your capital. So what do you do?

Israelis are upset there is no agreement. They are starting to question your abilities. Politically you have been weakened by this. What to do...How can a hawkish Prime Minister regain the support and respect of his people? Hmmm...

Netanyahu does not agree with Obama and politically cannot backdown on the settlement question. Netanyahu has to feel he cannot trust the United States to back Israel on any issue, in particular security. He has to think that it is likely that Israel may have to face security threats in the future alone, without US support and even face possible sanctions from the UN. The U.S. will not stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, they can't even get sanctions. Iran will have enough enriched uranium to make a bomb and they have the missile technology to deliver. They have been talking about wiping Israel off the map for years.

You are a hawkish prime minister in need of some momentum and positive results, you could strike Iran first. No one else is going to stop Iran. the UN, the US, Russia or China. You know they want weapons and you know they are close, you cannot tolerate that. You must strike. It will cause international uproar and may lead to condemnation from President Obama and the US. But the US is no longer a reliable ally anyway...

You could try to persuade Obama and work with them to get the US back on your side. It didn't work this time but you could try again. That would be quite humbling considering how the last meeting went. He has nothing he can offer Obama and the US to get them back on his side. Is there a middle road? No. Obama and Netanyahu clearly are not on the same page and the likelihood of working together is low right now.

Netanyahu has to ask himself, does he have much to lose by striking Iran pre-emptively? Relations with US are already chilly, the Europeans and most of the UN doesn't like what Israel is doing now, Iran could strike back. That is really the only issue, if the strike succeeds can Israel defend itself from Iran. The U.S. would have to step in to avert a war. Wouldn't they?

That is what is likely being discussed. What happens after the initial strike? Can Israel do what it has done in Iraq and Syria? A quick strike, then back away. War did not erupt when Israel struck the nuclear facilities of those two countries. Will Iran be any different. Guessing from their crazy rhetoric, yes.

Iran will try to aggressively arm its proxy groups (Hezbollah and Hamas) but in the end they can't destroy Israel through conventional means. Is Netanyahu, a hawkish Prime Minister, willing to do something that could erupt an open and intense conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah, maybe even Iran itself? What will their neighbors do? Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. They may condemn the attack but privately, will be happy to see their Iranian nuke program destroyed or at least set back. Syria could be the lone problem. But Israel bombed Syria a year or two ago and now is negotiating a peace treaty with them to settle the Golan Heights dispute. Would an Iran strike kill that? Would Syria honor their alliance and fight Israel over this?

My thoughts? A rift has been steadily growing between Syria and Iran. Syria appears more willing to join the more moderate Middle East and the more Sunni. In Iraq, Syria and Iran are on opposite sides of the political developments there. Odds of Syria declaring war or joining Iran? Moderate to low. Odds of Iran invading Israel? Very low. Odds of a war with Hamas and Hezbollah? Very high. Would Netanyahu, a hawkish leader with his strength in security, be willing to start a war to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons? The answer is yes.

In my mind, Netanyahu would have to argue that unless the United States can end the Iranian nuclear weapons program and allow him to use it as a morale booster, he will need to move soon on his own. A strike on Iran is becoming a more practical option for him. This spat with Obama has only increased its practicality.

Obama's desire to pull the U.S. away from the Middle East will leave the countries in that region to solve their own security problems. Their solutions are not as nice and peaceful as ours. By pulling back, Obama is potentially encouraging countries in that region to act unilaterally to protect themselves. Not a good idea.