Obamacare 2.0: Obama’s Move Towards Communism

July 11, 2012 § Leave a comment

     The precedent of the Supreme Court’s upheld and revised Obamacare, is a dangerous weapon for congress to use against the people. In the wake of the court’s decision, we are now threatened by a Congress that has the ability to tax every man, woman, and child for living in the manner they choose. If healthcare can be regulated by Congressional taxes then there is no limit to what facets of our lives the Federal Government can reach. This terrifying manifestation of, not Socialist, but Communist rule in our Democratic-Republic will rally people against Obama this fall. He will have to answer for, not only the increased levy of taxes on all citizens (a direct contradiction of his earlier stances) but the crippling blow he has dealt to our way of life. Obama has yet to realize that the fifty sovereign States cannot be governed by one man, nor were they ever meant to be

     The final decision, a poor and oxymoronic compromise between left leaning judges and the disappointing Chief Justice John Roberts, leaves us at the mercy of limitless regulations by Congress. While Roberts did state that regulating healthcare is not enumerated in the Constitution, under the Commerce Clause; nowhere does he prove that it is enumerated in the Constitution to the Congress. This interpretation gives limitless power to the legislative branch to be used against Americans however the branch sees fit.

      The new Obamacare is, both, a tax and a threat to all Americans. The unrestricted legislative power to regulate and tax individual choices is a communist concept that our Commander-in-Chief has championed into law. What’s unnerving is his constant assertion that the tax is not a tax at all, despite the Supreme Court’s clear definition. If he really had our nation’s best interests at heart he would repeal the law and reintroduce a new version of it, but he won’t do that. He wouldn’t risk his political future for principle.  We have watched his well-intentioned legislation derail our nation for far too long. While many of us are still tentative regarding Romney’s ability to lead our nation, we can all agree that Obama cannot lead us any further.

“If your American Chief (President) be a man of ambition and
abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute.”

    – Patrick Henry



The Myth of Mitt’s Electability

January 31, 2012 § Leave a comment

A startling disconnect in this Republican primary has been the sharp difference between the number of Republicans who think Mitt will be the Republican nominee, and the number of Republicans who want Mitt to be the Republican nominee.

Despite millions of dollars in campaign and Super Pac spending for attack ads, rallies, and campaign promotions, Mitt Romney has only recently managed to break the ceiling of one quarter support in Gallup Polls or polling data that has hindered his campaign for months. In every poll, over 60% of Republicans say that they expect Romney to be the Republican nominee, but only around 25% have said that they want him to be the next nominee. Every other candidate to reach 25% has had his campaign crippled by liberal media bias and the Romney machine attacking them on all fronts, yet Mitt remains unscathed. They’re not challenging his conservative positions because he has no history of conservative positions.

Mitt, during his political tenure, has not been a conservative, a Tea Party Patriot, or even a libertarian. On the fiscal side, Romney has supported every major policy and piece of legislation championed by Obama and decried by Reagan Conservatives. In the case of health care, he beat Obama to the punch. On the social side, though Tea Party patriots have made economic issues their rallying point, they will not compromise their morals by supporting a man who has actively championed abortion practices in his own state, as well as same sex marriages. Because of this, every major issue that could be leveled against Obama by Romney, falls short of credibility when Romney has supported those same issues, in the near and distant past.

While conservative candidates fight for the title of “Reagan conservative,” Mitt, in 1994, openly stated that he was “an independent during the time of Reagan/Bush.” In his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts, he raised taxes, raised fees on gun licenses, held a strong pro-choice position, and did all in his power to distance himself from the conservative revolution of 1994. Mitt Romney is not, an acceptable alternative to Barack Obama, and in too many ways, he is the exact same.

In William J. Bennett’s most recent book; “The Book of Man,” one of the most remarkable and unknown stories is that of Davy Crockett’s tenure in Congress. Crockett refused to let Congress appropriate funds for a Navy widow’s retirement, on the principle that congress had no right to appropriate public funds for charity. Instead he gave up a week of his own pay to compensate the widow and recommended that every congressman do the same. True leadership takes courage and integrity, especially in the face of opposition. Romney may very well have believed in conservative principles, while in the private sector, but he betrayed them as Governor of Massachusetts. Now, he claims to be a true conservative after all. If he doesn’t have the courage to stay true to his own convictions, then what confidence do we have in his ability to stay true to the convictions of the people he seeks to represent?

Tyrants Temptation and A One War Army

January 10, 2012 § Leave a comment

    The decision to cut military spending in lieu of entitlement programs is not a new one, however, it is one that recent history has empirically proven to be the wrong one.  The most alarming foreign policy shift of this recent decision is the move to take America from a “two war military” to a “one war military,” eliminating an almost 70 year cornerstone of American Foreign Policy.  Anytime in our nation’s history that we have attempted similar measures or cuts, our enemies have responded with expansions of force.

    The strategy of a two war military evolved from the demonstrated necessity of a two front Navy. During World War II, the US. Navy was constantly forced to displace warships from the Atlantic to the Pacific, including four aircraft carriers. Military spending did drop from the unprecedented levels of World War II, but rose as the United States entered Korea. With the advent of the Cold War, the United States maintained its strong military presence throughout the Johnson administration. This strong military spending permitted the United States to halt the Soviet tide in the Korean War; initiate the Berlin Airlift; successfully force Khrushchev to remove ICBM’s from Cuba; and support of South Vietnam.

    Military spending expanded heavily under John F. Kennedy, but, after the failures of the Johnson administration’s foreign policy, Richard Nixon called for deep cuts in US. Military spending that continued under Ford and Carter. A combination of this, and their flawed détente policy, weakened the US. Military and its projection of power as a deterrent. This leading to the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Union, the expansion of Communist influence in Southeast Asia, and the Iranian hostage Crisis. With a weakened military the United States was unable to project power on a large enough scale to deter communist expansion.

    Even after the failure of the attempted Iranian hostage rescue, Carter refused to step up military spending or to abandon détente, and the Soviet Union expanded into Afghanistan. It was only after Reagan came to office with a policy of a strong national Military and a reversal of faulty détente that the hostages were released from Iran and enough support was sent to Afghanistan to defeat the invading Soviet forces. Even after Reagan’s strong foreign policies and heavy military spending defeated the Soviet Union, our military was once again weakened under Clinton leading to the attack on the USS Cole and ineffective policies aimed at apprehending Osama Bin Laden.

    As we begin our drawdown in Afghanistan and watch Iraq being pushed further and further into civil war, we see a Southern and Western Asia filled with instability. Pakistan is rife with corruption and volatility. A civil war within a nation with over two hundred operational nuclear warheads is an imminent danger to the free world. Riots are daily news throughout the Middle East where the Muslim Brotherhood grows in strength.  Iran’s nuclear program pushes us closer to the point of no return in which we must attack or face an unacceptable future. To cut our military now is, historically speaking, an open invitation for rogue nations to expand their presence and power on the world stage.

    There is a balance to the world that America, as the only superpower, has a greater influence, than any other nation.  With his course of action, our President fails to ensure the safety of the American citizen and American interests, foreign and domestic. His plan upsets the current balance and puts our freedom at risk. As a country of good and free men, we are unwilling to sit idly by while the machinations of evil men make our children’s future one filled with war and fear.  Yet we cannot deter their evil without the presence of strength. To weaken us now is to invite their presence on us. As Ronald Reagan once said:

“History has taught us only too well, that tyrants are tempted only when the forces of freedom are weak, not when they’re strong.”

A Return to Production

December 23, 2011 § Leave a comment

I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

-Winston Churchill

America, by design, promotes individual exceptionalism, but despite this, under this President, the economy has continued to falter. After spending trillions of dollars on bailouts, stimulus packages, and job creation measures, the country is facing the worst unemployment rates since the Great Depression. There is a fundamental misconception that the role of government is to create jobs, however this administration’s philosophy dictates that it can only be done at the expense of the private sector. It says a great deal about an administration that seeks to promote economic prosperity, not by creating opportunity for those who are trying to build, but by taking form those who already have.

The current regulation and tax systems do not take from the wealthy and the producers in order to help the poor; they take from the wealthy and the producers in order to help the government. In the past three years, the middle class has shrunk, production has dropped, unemployment has risen, but the government is bigger than it has ever been. It’s reminiscent to the policies of Jimmy Carter to which Ronald Reagan famously said, “We don’t have inflation because the people are living too well, we have inflation because the government is living too well.”

The role of government is to encourage job growth within the private sector while safeguarding against corruption. The administration has eschewed this fundamental truth in favor of an agenda stipulating; Americans must have less so that the federal government can have more. Obama has said time and time again that higher tax rates promote economic prosperity when all evidence points to the contrary.  John F. Kennedy presided over a 4.9% growth in GDP spurned on by tax cuts. Ronald Reagan cut the tax rates from 70% on the top margins, to 28%, along with a 25% across the board tax cut, taking America form a recession to an average GDP growth of 7.1%.

FDR, the regent, godfather, and Elvis of big government failed to create real growth in America. All benefits of the New Deal were short-lived and immediately followed by further economic loss. It was only after America adopted and expanded Lend-Lease that the economy began to recover from the Great Depression. The key was production. There is no secret formula beyond the simple truth that, for an economy to prosper, the people must be free to produce. The US government’s only role in the economy is to encourage growth and protect against corruption, but once it hinders that growth, it has failed.

Illegal Immigration Reform and A Return to Federalism

December 15, 2011 § Leave a comment

Co-Written with Craig Shirley and republished in Politico

The current failures of the federal government to resolve the issue of illegal immigration have placed heavy burdens on the country and each time a state has attempted to address the matter, Washington has stepped in, making the matter worse. An interesting proposal has been floated (though incompletely) by GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich to blend the policies of FDR’s Draft Boards with the issue of illegal immigrants.

In the days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declaration of war on America by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, men (and some women) from all walks of life, all ages and all backgrounds flooded the recruiting offices of all the services. The city of Washington was in a near-state of chaos and it was quickly determined that in order to speedily process (and evaluate) the readiness  of young men, thousands of local Draft Boards were constituted, as they had been during the Civil War and World War One. Typically, Draft Boards of the era were comprised of religious and civic leaders along with local businessmen and women. As an example, the city of San Francisco was replete with dozens of draft boards, with people from all walks of life. Owners of local hotels, dentists, retired executives, philanthropists, roofing contractors and the like, all participated on local draft boards there.

Young men knew the requirements to register via local newspapers, the radio, word or mouth or simply asking how and where at the local post office. Those who did not register in a timely fashion faced fines and possible arrest. To be sure, these young men going before a Draft Board had committed no crime but instead were being called to national service. If a potential recruit was not fit for duty, due  physical limitations, being employed in “essential work” or having dependents, the Draft Board would handle the situation wisely and expeditiously.

It was Federalism in its purest form, as it put these decisions with the American people who were closest to the situation and thus able to make the best decisions for their country. Guidelines had been issued from the Selective Service, but these Washington bureaucrats could not foresee every eventuality, such as a young man who had an elderly grandparent as his dependent.

Washington put power in the hands of the citizenry, trusting their judgment.

More recently, Washington has been paralyzed over the issue of illegal immigrants in America. Some want to give them blanket amnesty and other want to deport them en masse. Neither position is attractive nor logistically feasible. Both have severe political repercussions.

There is no debate that regardless of when the act occurred, any individual who has come to this country illegally has committed a crime. Yet many have been here for years, becoming deeply embedded in local culture, local churches, creating businesses and raising a family. So why not let the American people undertake their own “peer review” of their neighbors?

Constituting “Citizen Review Boards” could be a new way forward and a breakthrough to the impasse. Letting trusted American citizens determine whether an individual can and should stay in the United States and what restitution they must make is an old/new way of looking at things. If 70 years ago a New Deal president could put his faith in the wisdom of the American people, surely in the 21st century, the national government of this era can do the same. Asking Americans to step forward and volunteer once again for their country, could be the necessary spark to make citizens feel a part of a greater mission, once again, and give new meaning to “participatory democracy.”

Why Green Dragon?

November 29, 2011 § Leave a comment

Why Green Dragon?

Green Dragon Tavern was the meeting place for both the Freemasons and the Sons of Liberty. Originally located in the North End of Boston, Massachusetts,  it was where the Boston Tea Party was planned, the starting point for the ride of Paul Revere,  and the focal point for many other significant events and meetings integral to the American Revolution. Though it was eventually demolished, its legacy earned it the title of: “Headquarters of the Revolution.”

A Green Dragon Patriot is an individual who believes in the principles of this nation, set forth by our forefathers, and stands by them with both passion and reason.  The original patriots who met at the Green Dragon Tavern were not philosophers who walled themselves in ivory towers or a mindless rabble that acted on aggression and vindictiveness. They united upon the common foundation of life liberty and property, but they didn’t limit themselves to postulation and rhetoric. They lived by it and fought for it. Many of the issues that our nation faces today are a result of our elected official’s failure to uphold the word and spirit of the laws of this nation.

We must never underestimate the weight of words and we must be willing to stand for them. The world is rapidly becoming one of personal interpretation and moral ambiguity. A growing trait of this generation is the ability to justify and rationalize any decision with a turn of phrase and a smattering of pseudo-psychobabble. This sophistry is now being embraced by our political leaders, as made clear by the consistent invasion of freedom for the benefit of the government.  Legislation like health care reform was a blatant invasion of every American’s personal freedom, yet it was rationalized and justified as “for the good of America.” As we prepare for our next election, GreenDragonPatriots.com will follow the events to come and present issue and opinion that is grounded in an adherence to the rule of law, as well as the spirit of the law.

“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”

-Edmund Burke

Mission Statement:

November 25, 2011 § Leave a comment

Green Dragon Patriots

To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s 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 every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

 -Thomas Jefferson, 1787

When American policymakers adopt and enforce legislation that runs antithetical to what it is to be American, we suffer as a nation. To be American. To be free. To exist in a moral society rooted in the social contract of common values passed from our ancestors to present day. To combine the best that an individual has within him to be with that individuals inherent desire to be the best that he chooses to be. When Congress betrays our shared values with laws that strip away our rights, individuality, and responsibility, we suffer as a nation.

In the past decade, the American people have watched as one freedom after another is stripped away.  Some of these freedoms were relinquished willingly for the defense of this country, but many more were taken when our trust and faith were betrayed by the broken promises and failed agendas of our elected leaders. These freedoms have yet to be returned to their natural owners. These freedoms are ours. Endowed by natural right, not Bureaucracy.

Green Dragon Patriots believe in the natural and inalienable rights of the American citizen. Almost two hundred and fifty years ago, our forefathers, from their headquarters at the Green Dragon Tavern, made a stand in defense of those rights. The same stand the American Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine have made everyday and continue to make.

Green Dragon Patriots is a blog dedicated to the core values held by every American who believes in the defense of freedom against tyranny from forces, foreign and domestic.

Posting will occur, at least, twice a week. This blog is not funded by any political party or interest group.