Beers With Our Founding Fathers
  • Introduction
  • Order
  • Blog - Author Thoughts
  • Book Excerpts and Chapter Previews
    • Exerpts and Quotes
    • Table of Contents
    • Loss of Direction
    • Bill of Rights
    • Second Amendment
    • Tunnel Intellligence
  • Contact Info
  • Media Copies
  • Founding Documents
  • Speaking Engagements

The Rise of the Tea Party Due to Political Disparity

6/11/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
Suggested additional commentary:"Freedom Party - Advice from a Patriot" (http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/blog---author-thoughts/freedom-party-advice-from-a-patriot) - The progressive-socialist-democrats are experts at divide and conquer.  If race baiting doesn't work, its a war on women or some other social issue that is simply a distraction - but a dividing distraction.

The Rise of the Tea Party Due to Political Disparity

From a friend of many years, admittedly left leaning, but moderate.  “Moderation is the key. As a society, we will never agree until we understand moderation.”

I am right leaning, moderate on social issues and strong on fiscal issues…

Moderates, as much as we might like that, don't exist in party platforms...only in our minds. Democrats are not liberals and Republicans are not conservative. What does exist in reality is either socialist or conservative. Socialism is unconstitutional and conservatism is the foundation of a civilized and productive society and republic.

People are / can be moderate; politicians cannot be because of party platforms. Conservatism is a fiscal ideology, not a social ideology and liberalism is a social ideology. That is what has political parties screwed...social ideologies instead of fiscal.

The Tea Party is excoriated by the media as ultra-right-wing racists, etc.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  First, take a look back and see the direction our Country has consistently transitioned since the dawn of the 20th Century – left, ‘progressively’ left.  That leaves anything else as becoming more and more right.  Compared to the socialist / progressive agenda, yes, the Tea Party is far right.  But let’s first look at that before continuing with the ideological disparities – one ties into the other.

FYI - the reason the Tea Party is seen as 'far right' is because the moderate left has long been far left and the GOP has Gotten Obviously Progressive (left).  On a scale of 1-5 for right, Tea Party is about 3.  There is no relationship between Tea Party and those 4-5 far right groups.

This is what Tea Party represents, and I stand behind it - most people do, they just are afraid to be labeled...
-- No more bailouts
-- Reduce the size and intrusiveness of government
-- Stop raising our taxes
-- Repeal Obamacare
-- Cease out-of-control spending
-- Bring back American prosperity

Do you agree or disagree with these concepts?  The alternative is socialism...
-- Nationalize consumer services
-- Increase the size and intrusiveness of government
-- Continue raising our taxes
-- Ignore failures of Obamacare
-- Ignore out-of-control spending
-- Lower socioeconomics over American Prosperity

To better explain the concept of political disparity, here is an excerpt from my book, ‘Beers with our Founding Fathers’ (www.BeersWithOurFoundingFathers.com):  Political Ideologies - From Lug Nut to Wing Nut.

Through the centuries of our Country, there have been changes in the political party landscape every few decades.  Parties may change names but not ideologies, or ideologies but not names – historically even a whole new name and ideology.  These represent the continued advancement of our Country – not progressive movement or forward movement; those are both ideologically socialist slogans.  Capitalism advances every person, society and our Country as a whole – it has never failed!  One example would be the Democratic ideology through the 1960’s that was for lower taxes and not asking what your unearned entitlements from your country are; but, what your country needs of you.  These ideologies of the Democratic party have morphed into the polar opposite – increase taxes, more taxpayer government handouts and unearned entitlements, reduced earned benefits and unfathomable increased spending.

I am a conservative Independent.  Both parties are wrecked by focusing on social issues.  It is what attracts the Parasitic Cult, but repels the Fiscal Culture.  If there is no economy, social issues do not matter.  As the left (Democrats, liberals, progressives, socialists, etc.) focus more on social issues, the faster the spiral into the economic abyss we go.  If discussing politics, religion and social issues among friends is taboo – why in the world would these subjects be made part of the candidate’s party platform?

Independents are not party affiliated because the parties have become incoherent to the core issues – the economy and our Constitution.  Both parties are guilty of:    1) A form of indentured servitude or slavery through illegal immigration pandering; 2) A form of indentured servitude or slavery through perpetual unearned taxpayer funded government handouts; 3) Continuing the divisiveness needed to feed the disparity of socioeconomic classes; and 4) Vote pandering.

The political ideology scale is generally subdivided into fiscal, earned benefits and unearned handouts, social and religious parts of the overall equation.  But – only the economy matters, and therefore also funded earned benefits; nothing else does – they are personal, not political.  Politics is only business, nothing personal.  However, unearned entitlements (taxpayer funded handouts of the Parasitic Cults) are personal and valued by the socialist Democrats.  So focusing only on those – the Parasitic Cult tends to be more left of center and the economy class tends to be right of center.  Although parties and ideology may seem close to center, they are a full span apart – they are essentially polar opposites.  As an analogy, if the United States coasts are fives and you live in Denver (Colorado), with a friend living in Indianapolis (Indiana), and a mutual friend lives midway in Topeka (Kansas) – Denver and Indianapolis are equidistant from Topeka, but you are both twice as far from each other as to Topeka.  Distant, whether across the aisle or across the country is relative to the starting and end point, not the center.

Independents are still looking for their ideal party to come to grips, we can see why there is such divisiveness between political views – and by inference – personal ideologies and agendas.  There is a warning to this – the more divisive these ideologies and agendas become, the closer our Country is to anarchy.  Anarchy will happen when both ideologies find themselves at opposite ends of the spectrum.  Hear me again – the Parasitic Cult and their socialist party will continue to indoctrinate and victimize while moving left.  The Fiscal Culture cannot continue to move right – must jettison the social issues and non-economic issues.

-- A Republican is not necessarily a conservative; a conservative is not necessarily a Fiscal Culturist;
-- A liberal is not necessarily a socialist; a socialist is not necessarily a Parasitic Cultist;
-- Fiscal Culture – typically a conservative who values the free market capitalist foundation, history and future of our Country;
-- Benefit Culture – Benefits are ‘Earned’ entitlements, and are not remotely synonymous with ‘Unearned’ entitlements. Earned benefits include Social Security, pensions and other beneficiaries of government and private programs due to their personal contributions.  The Benefit Culture should be aligned with the Fiscal Culture; and
-- Parasitic Cult – Their existence is dependent on taking from others without any personal contribution or responsibility; they are pathological victimizers.  This would include ‘Unearned’ entitlements (government handouts) such as taxpayer funded public assistance beyond Well Fair, medical care and other benefits of government and private programs without any personal contribution and a false sense of otherwise deserving by an non-existent ‘right’ as opposed to a real need or special privilege.

There is only one possible way to fix this – elect Fiscal Culture candidates, regardless of their party affiliation or your own.  There is a political axiom – ‘party trumps candidate’ and I agree with this – except the Republic party is full of Republicans in Name Only (RINOs) or GOP being Getting Obviously Progressive a/k/a progressive conservatives (Democrats that simply have not changed party affiliation).  To be certain of a Fiscal Culture candidate on the general election ballot, it is important for all social platform candidates to be removed in the caucuses and primary elections.  Then, and only then, will party truly trump candidate and the Fiscal Culture be victorious.
-----
Dean A. Beers, American Patriot
Author and Speaker – Beers with our Founding Fathers
[email protected]
www.facebook.com/BeersWithOurFoundingFathers

0 Comments

Unilaterally Legitimizing Terrorists

6/8/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
Unilaterally Legitimizing Terrorists

More than a week has transpired since the trade of Bowe Bergdahl for five top-ranking Taliban terrorists from Guantanamo Bay Detention Center.  Information and commentary has made all the circuits.  The dust has begun to settle on the event and initial comments.

This commentary is not about the status of Bowe Bergdal – whether POW, MIA, AWOL, deserter or traitor; I hope the Army Criminal Investigations Division and Judge Advocate General conducts a detailed investigation and determination.  Additionally, this is not about whether Guantanamo Bay Detention Center should be closed.

This commentary – like my other commentaries – is about the continued blatant disregard for the law of our land – our Constitution.

The two key points to this commentary are simple:  1) “negotiating with terrorists”; and 2) “no soldier gets left behind on the battlefield.”

Let me be clear – there has been, continues to be, and this incident makes clear – grounds for impeachment.  Impeachment is a two-pronged process:  1) House of Representatives draws up articles of impeachment; and 2) Senate hears the impeachment process.  The House presents their articles and tries them before the Senate as jury, and the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court presiding.  Our Country will always be further divided by an impeachment process; however, a house divided can be saved – a house burned to the ground, as Rome burned, is gone forever.

Background
Our country initiated a response to 9/11 to remove the Taliban from being unelected government of Afghanistan (1996, think coup d’état) to restoring an elected government.  Without going into the issues of the seated government, let’s simply adhere to the premise that the Taliban is not the government of Afghanistan, never legitimately was or recognized, and Afghanistan has an elected government.  Moreover, the Taliban and its members are on the US terrorist groups list.  War is legally defined as between legitimate countries and governments, as are prisoners of war.  Because of the 10-plus year War on Terror, recognizing both the actors and prisoners in war has become difficult and changed legal meanings.

Then PFC Bowe Bergdahl was reported missing from his Afghanistan post in 2009.  In 2010 a US Army investigation concluded he deserted his post.  He has remained the last US service member in captivity from the war on terror in Afghanistan.  Was he a soldier left behind, or a deserter?  That will be conclusive at a later time.  For this commentary, his status as a prisoner of war is recognized.

The US has had a long standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists.  By definition, terrorists cannot negotiate.  They further their unjust causes through terrorizing people.  That is how the Taliban came to be in power, and it is why they remain an enemy.

The US has also had a long standing military ethos of leaving no soldier behind.  Soldiers have also had an ethos to not be traded for terrorists.

To negotiate with terrorists is to empower them.  That is how the Taliban remained in power, and it is why they were removed.  To have negotiated further gives them the recognition of the authority that the war was to have stripped them of.

Incident
The process of securing the release of Bowe Bergdahl became a priority when “Due to a near-term opportunity to save Sergeant Bergdahl’s life, we moved as quickly as possible. The administration determined that given these unique and exigent circumstances, such a transfer should go forward notwithstanding the notice requirement of the NDAA.”  This requirement is a 30 day notice to the Congress of actions by the president, including prisoner exchange.

What was Bowe Bergdahl’s health concerns giving rise to exigent circumstances?  How was that of more consideration than five high-ranking terrorist leaders?  This is not to say that Bowe Bergdahl’s life was not worth saving or negotiating for.  It is to say that when these terrorist leaders are free to return to the battlefield, they will endeavor to take the lives of more US soldiers.  Of course, the terms of the release were that they would be confined to the borders of Qatar for a year.  Well, that’s comforting.  Remember when England negotiated with Libya to release the dying terrorist responsible for the Pan Am flight bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland?  Yeah, he was in really bad health at the time of his release.  The five terrorists were also greeted as heroes and the US continues to weaken.

Key Points
-- President Barack Obama – some know who he is and what he represents, many still do not – or at least will not accept it. 

After his initial statements, this is what the president had to say, “I make no apologies for it. It was a unanimous decision among my principals in my government, and a view that was shared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This is something I would do again and will continue to do whenever I have an opportunity.” [underscored emphasis added].  We have not heard from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we have heard from former members.  I certainly hope this was not unanimous – or even one vote of support – by them.

-- Sen. Lindsay Graham – a GOP (Getting Obviously Progressive) is reported to have said ‘If Obama pulls this again, there will be impeachment talk.’  First thought is, ‘AGAIN’?!; but…

What he actually said was, “It’s going to be impossible for them to flow prisoners out of Guantanamo Bay now without a huge backlash.  There will be people on our side calling for his impeachment if he did that.” Graham did not say he would talk of impeachment, just some on his side would (his side, which side - he is most often Progressive leaning, but he calls himself a Republican).

-- Susan Rice – is the National Security Advisor, and has been during each scandal of this administration.  She is the first to be sent out to inform the public of the position of the administration, as it relates to how the public is group think how events unfolded.

She was directly asked, "Did the US negotiate with terrorists for his release?”  To which she responded, “…what we did was ensure that, as always, the United States doesn’t leave a man or woman on the battlefield. In order to do this, it’s very important for folks to understand, if we got into a situation where we said because of who has captured an American soldier on the battlefield, we will leave that person behind.  We would be in a whole new era for the safety of our personnel and for the nature of our commitment to our men and women in uniform. So, because it was the Taliban that had him did not mean that we had any less of an obligation to bring him back.”

The Taliban is not the government of Afghanistan, never legitimately was or recognized, and Afghanistan has an elected government.  Moreover, the Taliban and its members are on the US terrorist groups list.  Rice was reminded of this, to which she responded, “We actually negotiated with the government of Qatar, to whom we owe a great debt.”

-- Hillary Clinton – was the Secretary of State during the 9/11/2012 attacks on the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya.  Four US citizens were left to die – the Ambassador to Libya and three operators holding down as best they could, their Alamo.

Hillary Clinton was asked if a deal was made with the devil.  She responded with, “I think this was a very hard choice… If you look at what the factors were going into the decision, of course there are competing interests and values. And one of our values is we bring everybody home off the battlefield the best we can. It doesn't matter how they ended up in a prisoner of war situation…we bring our people home.”

In Conclusion
First, this latest scandal is the predicted result to distract from the multitude of more serious scandals impacting our Country.  I am not diminishing one soldier’s captivity – regardless of circumstances.  I am asking why it is so easy to have one event about one person take away from the reality in which we find ourselves.

The two key points, as taken by many, from this commentary are simple:  1) “negotiating with terrorists”; and 2) “no soldier gets left behind on the battlefield.”

I believe the president has the power and duty to act in the release of prisoners of war – or any captive of any military action.  That power and duty must fall within specific parameters, whether Congress is notified or not - exigency has not been defined in the applicable law.  For purposes of this commentary, let’s simplify this to three things:  1) a soldier in captivity (status unknown); 2) a recognized terrorist group; and 3) five recognized high-ranking terrorist leaders.  The latter two are the key – the US does not negotiate with terrorists and no president has the authority to negotiate with terrorists, whether in unanimous agreement by 'his principles in his government or not'.

These negotiations involved Qatar, perhaps an ally – but all countries will always be beholden to and complicit with their counterparts.  Susan Rice would now have us believe that foreign countries tell us what to do.  That the US did not know five senior Taliban terrorists would be traded.  Regardless of an intervening party, terrorists were negotiated with and sworn enemies were released to return to the battlefield.

We cannot forget that Hillary Clinton is the media favorite to run on the Democrat ticket for president.  This would be her second round; her first officially.  Recalling that as a very forgiving First Lady, she set the precedent for the current First Lady in making policy recommendations and decisions as if elected to office.  “We bring our people home.”  To her it doesn’t matter if it’s in body bags or not, or if the terrorists are given aid and comfort.

Listen closely to what is being said about this prisoner trade...

"His father, Bob Bergdahl, spoke a few phrases in Pashtun, saying that his son is having trouble speaking English after his captivity in Afghanistan, according to a military press service."
-- I haven't heard of any POW forgetting their native language. Sen. McCain was broken, but he didn't speak only Vietnamese.

Secretary of Defense Hagel was asked if this prisoner exchange could lead to more breakthroughs with the Taliban. Getting Bowe Bergdahl out of captivity was the first concern, he said.  “Whether that could lead to possible new breakthroughs with the Taliban, I don’t know. Hopefully it might,” he said.
-- Breakthroughs with the Taliban? The Rules of Engagement have long been insufficient. A breakthrough is not needed - just breaking them. I guess this affirms that the US policy on negotiating with terrorists has changed.

Those responsible – apparently unanimous – should be held for treason in the prisoner swap. They returned five leaders of our sworn enemies back to the battlefields and we now ‘owe a great debt’ to Qatar.

Meanwhile...everyone will become distracted by the (yet another) scandal. Begs the question...what's really up?

Remember this – 'my principles' in 'my government' and the president would do so again - that is, act as his own government – even negotiate with terrorists, recognizing them and legitimizing them, while endangering US military personnel, embassy personnel and citizens.  The point that should be taken from this commentary is that the president continues to act unilaterally, and without recourse.  There has been time for investigation and resignation.  We are long past that time.
-----
Dean A. Beers, American Patriot
Author and Speaker – Beers with our Founding Fathers
[email protected]
www.facebook.com/BeersWithOurFoundingFathers

Please refer to the following related commentaries:

Past the Time for Resignations - the Time is for Impeachment
http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/05/past-the-time-for-resignations-the-time-is-for-impeachment.html

The RICO Administration
http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/08/the-rico-administration.html

Constitutional Apathy is Destroying Our Country
http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/06/constitutional-apathy-is-destroying-our-country.html

2014 Year of Reclamation
http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2014/01/2014-year-of-reclamation.html

Nationalized Train Wreck
http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/05/nationalized-train-wreck.html

UPDATED - Tri-Fecta of Scandals - Benghazi
http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2014/05/1.html

UPDATED - Tri-Fecta of Scandals - Journalists, DOJ and OUR  First Amendment
http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2014/05/11.html

Tri-Fecta of Scandals - IRS Corruption
http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/05/tri-fecta-of-scandals-irs-corruption.html

President's Legacy Tour - Avoiding Scandals and Scams
http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/06/presidents-legacy-tour-avoiding-scandals-and-scams.html

Are You an Enemy of the State?
http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/06/are-you-an-enemy-of-the-state.html

0 Comments

    Author

    Dean A. Beers is an American Patriot and welcomes all fellow Patriots.

    Archives

    July 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    July 2016
    February 2016
    November 2014
    October 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Direct email - [email protected]
What America do YOU want to live in?