Democrats Want to Abolish I.C.E.

Time to Abolish the Democratic Party



Abolition – the action or an act of abolishing a system, practice, or institution.

  • Synonyms: termination, eradication, elimination, extermination, destruction, annihilation, obliteration, or extirpation.

Hypocrite – a person who indulges in hypocrisy.

  • Synonyms: pretender, dissembler, deceiver, liar, pietist, sanctimonious person, phony, fraud, sham or fake.

According to the Democratic Party of 2018, we must abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (I.C.E.) and replace it with something else. What that something else should be, they never say.

Perhaps I.C.E. could be replaced by the same left-wing mobs that are going around harassing conservatives in restaurants, department stores, movie theaters and gas stations, and standing around holding signs, screaming and yelling nonsense at the top of their lungs every weekend. This might just be enough to drive away terrorists, smugglers, gangs, and drug cartels. Nah, that won’t work.

Also, according to Democrats, a woman should have the right to choose to have an abortion, resulting in the annihilation of her own unborn child. To punish a woman for choosing extermination, which is her right, is morally unconscionable, according to Democrats.

Yet, when it comes to health care, in defending Obamacare, Democrats reason that whether male, female, or somewhere in between, anyone declining coverage should indeed be punished, via the income tax code (i.e. the individual mandate). You either play, or you pay.

So, let’s get this straight. Under the Democratic Party’s philosophy, you have a right to choose not to be covered by health insurance, but if you do you will be punished financially. Yet, a woman should have the right to terminate the life of her unborn child without consequence. Well, you’re either for freedom or you’re not. Selectively choosing when, or for whom it applies is hypocrisy.

The left-wing movement du jour, the push to abolish I.C.E., is sounding more and more like a Russian propaganda campaign. Quick, somebody call the Special Counsel! Nah, that won’t work either.

The next course of action should be to officially abolish the Democratic Party, which has renounced the use of reason to such a degree that it is effectively obliterating itself. It’s extirpation is just a matter of time. What America needs is a new political party, one that doesn’t recklessly commit hypocrisy on such fundamental American principles as our freedom and sovereignty.

Extremist v. Extremist, Intolerance

charlottesville81217If you’ve ever been out in the streets protesting anything, you’re an extremist. If you’ve ever assembled peaceably to petition anyone, other than the government for redress of grievances, you’re an extremist. If you can’t handle the First Amendment rights of peaceable assembly and freedom of speech, you don’t deserve to be called an American.

According to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech, …or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Freedom of speech may be defined as, “the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.” The right to peaceably assemble, and to petition government for redress of grievances may be defined as, “the individual right or ability of people to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue, and defend their ideas; and make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one’s government, without fear of punishment or reprisals.”

Congress has, thus far, made no laws abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Yet others, including some local governments, federal government employees, extremist groups, the Democratic Party, Google / YouTube, and Facebook, often enforce their own un-American statutes.

For example, Google recently suspended my Google Plus account indefinitely, without any right of appeal, simply for declaring myself to be a Trump supporter and posting pro-Trump news articles. Of course, prior to doing so my Collection, entitled, “Trump 2016 / 2020” had over 10,000 followers and more than 10,000,000 views. My attempts to reinstate the account fell on deaf ears.

Since I did not violate any of Google’s rules, it claimed that I violated its impersonation policy, even though, unlike others, I used my real name and biographical profile. Thus, I am no longer a part of Google’s social networking experiment. I no longer have the freedom to express myself, nor the right to peaceably associate with friends and followers, at least not using Google’s services. Nine years of associations, thousands of followers, hundreds of posts and comments, gone in a flash. So, what’s next?

If the KKK, Neo-Nazi’s, white nationalists, Alt-left, Black Lives Matter, Blue Lives Matter or any other group wants to assemble peaceably to petition the government, they have a right to do so without fear of punishment or reprisals. Certainly, such groups have the right to assemble, and the freedom to write or say whatever they wish. But, that’s not the problem in this era. The plight of our day lies in counter-protests.

Counter-protesters serve no useful purpose other than to deny others of their basic Constitutional guarantees. Government condemnation of domestic hate groups serves no meaningful purpose, as they have a right to exist. The role of the federal government should be to condemn intolerance. There is no place for intolerance, at any level, in our society.

Counter-protesters are not petitioning the government for anything. They are rather protesting against other people’s rights to speak freely, to assemble and to petition the government. Shutting down the right of free speech, or the right to associate and petition the government is not the American way.

What the federal government should do is shut down counter-protest movements in every shape, form and fashion. Congress must pass additional laws protecting basic first amendment rights, by cracking down on counter-protesters. It must also outlaw the practice of street protests. Allowing opposing groups to protest at the same time, in public venues, is asinine.

Allowing any group to protest in the streets, or public places, violates the rights of others. Allowing groups with opposing views to counter-protest encourages violence. Rather than cultivate intolerance and violence, the federal government should do everything within its power to discourage it, while at the same time protecting everyone’s First Amendment rights.

The role of the federal government, and all who have taken oath to uphold the Constitution, is not to pick sides, but rather to promote tolerance in a diversity of ideas.

Google’s actions against me are reprehensible. But, the freedom I have was not granted by Google, and Google cannot take it away. Rather than fight, I have chosen to take my business elsewhere.

If you don’t like MSNBC or CNN, don’t watch. If you don’t like Donald Trump, don’t go to a Trump rally, stay at home. Better yet, pow-wow with the candidate of your choice and prepare for the 2020 election. If you don’t agree with the KKK, Neo-Nazi’s, white nationalists, the Alt-left, Black Lives Matter, Blue Lives Matter, the Democratic Party, or any other group, don’t support them or attend their functions. Instead support and associate with groups you agree with. Actions such as these are not extreme in nature, but are simply the American way.

Trump’s Dynamic Growth Policies

Top GDP Growth Rates in U.S. History

:: By: Larry Walker, II ::

In an October 4, 2015 interview on Meet the Press, Donald Trump was asked which government programs he will cut so his tax reduction plan won’t blow a hole in the deficit.

Trump’s first response described how we are going to save a lot in administrative costs by exempting millions of Americans from filing income tax returns. Under his plan, single individuals making under $25,000 and couples making less than $50,000 will not owe any income tax, and will thus not be required to file tax returns. This totally makes sense to me, as I outlined a similar plan in a post entitled, Tax Simplification, Part II – Saving $1,756 Billion, Overnight. Although it’s only part of the answer, it may actually be a bigger deal than some imagine.

Next, Mr. Trump remarked that his dynamic revenue plan focuses on growth. “We’re going to grow the economy. If China grows at 7%, they’re having a terrible year. We’re saying we can’t grow at 3% or 4%.” Overriding the host’s rude interruptions, Mr. Trump continued, “If we do 6% or 7% under my plan, everybody benefits.”

Snarky host, Chuck Todd, blurted out, “We’ve never done [sic]; we’ve never had a year at 6% or 7%.”

Of course, the public should be aware of Mr. Todd’s background. Although he may sound like an economic expert to some, he actually attended George Washington University from 1990 to 1994, majoring in political science with a minor in music, but never graduated. He certainly lacks proficiency in matters involving business, economics, or finance.

Mr. Todd would have no idea that the U.S. economy has in the past grown at rates as high as follows:

  • 10.8% (1934)
  • 12.9% (1936)
  • 17.7% (1941)
  • 18.9% (1942)
  • 17.0% (1943)

He would likewise have no clue that, back in the good old days, the U.S. economy grew in the 7% to 8% range (see chart below):

  • 7.3% (1984)
  • 7.1% (1955)
  • 8.1% (1951)
  • 8.7% (1950)
  • 8.0% (1944)
  • 8.8% (1940)
  • 8.0% (1939)
  • 8.9% (1935)

In fact, Ronald Reagan was the last American president to put together a cogent pro-growth economic plan which thrust GDP above the 7.0% mark. Of course Mr. Todd could have looked this up before making a fool out of himself and NBC, but like many of his colleagues, he suffers from the recency effect. He is unable to see beyond the pathetic growth rates of -3.0% to 2.5%, which the U.S. has realized since 2009 (i.e. their new normal).

Mr. Trump continued to discuss how his tax plan will disincentivize corporate inversions (where U.S. companies move overseas to capitalize on lower tax rates and cheap labor). He described how his plan will incentivize U.S. companies to bring an estimated $2.1 trillion (or more) in profits held overseas back to the U.S. for domestic investment. Both policies work to raise GDP, expand the workforce and boost tax revenues.

Trump also discussed his plan to balance our longstanding trade deficits with China, Mexico, Japan and other nations through imposing a scaled tariff. Since over the last decade, trade deficits with the three named countries alone amount to $2.7 trillion, $602.6 billion, and $716.5 billion, respectively, Trump’s balanced trade initiative could add another $4.1 trillion to the national economy.

Mr. Todd continued to interrupt, “We still have a hole in the deficit that this tax plan blows open; unless you tell us what you’re cutting.” Of course this is a classic gotcha question, since most liberals view cutting anything, even waste, fraud and abuse, as a negative.

Given the anemic growth rates he and other liberals are accustomed to, failing to account for the $1.8 trillion saved by exempting millions from income tax filing requirements, and gains realized through disincentivizing corporate inversions, recovering overseas profits, and balancing trade, Chuck Todd concluded that Donald Trump’s tax plan may add as much as $10 trillion to the debt over 10 years.

To this, Mr. Trump simply reiterated, “If we can get it (i.e. the growth rate) up to 5% or 6% it’s a huge difference.”

Mr. Todd again interrupted, “Okay, 6% is something we have not done.”

Trump refuted, “Well, we used to do it in the old days.”

It turns out that Mr. Todd is wrong, and that Mr. Trump, who has the kind of thinking America needs to solve its trade, growth, and debt problems, is correct. The chart here shows U.S. GDP growth rates from 1930 through 2014. Growth of 6% or more has been achieved numerous times in the past and is entirely possible in the future. The first step in getting there is to stop listening to know-nothing media pundits. The second step is to elect a president with notable acumen in financial matters.

“Solving a multi-trillion dollar problem just may require the mind of a billionaire.”


Data Worksheet

Bureau of Economic Analysis – Interactive Data

30-Year Trade Deficit with Mexico

30-Year Trade Deficit with China

Tax Simplification, Part II – Saving $1,756 Billion, Overnight

Big U.S. firms hold $2.1 trillion overseas to avoid taxes: Study

An Economic Program for Stimulating U.S. Economic Growth

30-Year Trade Deficit with Mexico

Trump Nails It

– By: Larry Walker II –

Last year our trade deficit with Mexico totaled $53.8 billion, and is projected to end about the same in 2015. When the last three decades are summed, we find that the United States 30-year trade deficit with Mexico amounts to $910.2 billion. Although this has been great for Mexico, it hasn’t been so great for the United States.

Looking back over the last 30 years, we find that the United States actually ran trade surpluses with Mexico in 1991 through 1994, and then came the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA – 1994). Since NAFTA, the United States annual trade deficits with Mexico have totaled $897.8 billion (since 1995). By comparison, the deficit amounted to just $13.7 billion during the 9 years preceding NAFTA.

U.S. Trade Deficit with Mexico (1985 to 2015)

2015 $31.2 billion (through July)

2014 $53.8 billion

2013 $54.5 billion

2012 $61.7 billion

2011 $64.6 billion

2010 $66.3 billion

2009 $47.8 billion

2008 $64.7 billion

2007 $74.8 billion

2006 $64.5 billion

2005 $49.9 billion

2004 $45.2 billion

2003 $40.6 billion

2002 $37.1 billion

2001 $30.0 billion

2000 $24.6 billion

1999 $22.8 billion

1998 $15.9 billion

1997 $14.5 billion

1996 $17.5 billion

1995 $15.8 billion

1994 ($1.3) billion (surplus)

1993 ($1.6) billion (surplus)

1992 ($5.4) billion (surplus)

1991 ($2.1) billion (surplus)

1990 $1.9 billion

1989 $2.2 billion

1988 $2.6 billion

1987 $5.7 billion

1986 $4.9 billion

1985 $5.5 billion

Not only are we losing in trade with Mexico, but the Mexican government has allowed millions of its own citizens, and those from nations to its south, to pour over our southern border illegally. That’s right! The Mexican government has been mostly complicit, looking the other way while tens of thousands boarded trains from its southernmost to its northernmost border, allowing them to cross our border without any resistance. Although lately Mexico claims to be clamping down on illegal border crossings, the damage has already been done.

There are folks both left and right who say, “Free-trade is good for America, because it allows us to work less and buy cheaper goods.” Although plausible on paper, the theory fails once we tally the last thirty years results. Looking back over the last 30 years, we discover that not only has the U.S. lost nearly $5.0 trillion in national wealth ($4 trillion to China and $1 trillion to Mexico alone), but according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, manufacturing jobs in the U.S. have declined from 18.0 million in 1985 to just 12.3 million as of August 2015.

According to Raymond Richman (Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Chicago and Professor Emeritus of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh), “We should end our huge chronic trade deficits which have decimated our manufacturing sector and caused the loss of millions of good American manufacturing jobs. Our policy should be balanced trade which economic theory supports rather than free trade which is supported by economic theory only when countries have a common currency and free movement of capital and labor (as among the States of the United States). We should use the “Scaled Tariff” (our invention!), a single-country-variable-tariff that rises as trade deficits widen significantly, whatever the reason, and are reduced to zero as trade is brought into balance.”

Once aware that our flawed trade policy has resulted in the siphoning away of more than $5 trillion in national wealth ($1 trillion to Mexico alone) and 6 million manufacturing jobs, it should be easy to understand how Mexico will pay for the new border wall. Mr. Trump has his finger on two of the most glaring problems with our economy, illegal immigration and our Lose-Lose foreign trade policy. Balancing our trade deficit, by any means necessary, is a vital component in the quest to make America great again.


An Economic Program for Stimulating U.S. Economic Growth

30-Year Trade Deficit with China – Maybe Trump Gets It

U.S. Census Bureau – Trade in Goods with Mexico

Bureau of Labor Statistics – CES Establishment Data – Manufacturing

U.S. Census Bureau – Income and Poverty in the United States: 2013

30-Year Trade Deficit with China

Port of Savannah

Maybe Trump Gets It

-By: Larry Walker II-

This year-to-date, the United States has imported $267.7 billion in goods from China, while exporting just $65.4 billion in goods to China. That amounts to a current year trade deficit of $202.3 billion, in the first seven months alone. Looking back over the last 30 years, the last time our mutual trade comprised any semblance of balance was in 1985.

Our trade deficit with China was a mere $6.0 million in 1985 (the last time it would amount to less than a billion dollars). From a trade deficit of just $6.0 million in 1985, the imbalance suddenly jumped to $1.7 billion by 1986. It has grown progressively worse almost every year since. Last year our trade imbalance with China reached a record $343.1 billion, and it is projected to end higher this year.

When the last three decades are summed, we find that the United States 30-year trade deficit with China amounts to $3.9 trillion. To top it off, the imbalance is clearly growing worse year by year. Although this has been great for China, it hasn’t been so great for the U.S.

U.S. Trade Deficits with China (1985 to 2015)

2015 $202.3 billion (through July)

2014 $343.1 billion

2013 $318.7 billion

2012 $315.1 billion

2011 $295.2 billion

2010 $273.0 billion

2009 $226.9 billion

2008 $268.0 billion

2007 $258.5 billion

2006 $234.1 billion

2005 $202.3 billion

2004 $162.3 billion

2003 $124.1 billion

2002 $103.1 billion

2001 $83.1 billion

2000 $83.8 billion

1999 $68.7 billion

1998 $56.9 billion

1997 $49.7 billion

1996 $39.5 billion

1995 $33.8 billion

1994 $29.5 billion

1993 $22.8 billion

1992 $18.3 billion

1991 $12.7 billion

1990 $10.4 billion

1989 $6.2 billion

1988 $3.5 billion

1987 $2.8 billion

1986 $1.7 billion

1985 $6.0 million

There are folks on both the left and right who say, “Free-trade is good for America, because it allows us to work less and buy cheaper goods.” Although it may be true that free-trade allows us to purchase more goods at lower prices, a problem arises when the exchange is so grossly out of balance. Although plausible on paper, the theory fails once we tally the last thirty years results. Looking back, we discover that not only has the U.S. lost $3.9 trillion in wealth (with just one country), but according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, manufacturing jobs in the U.S. have declined from 18.0 million in 1985 to just 12.3 million as of August 2015.

The idea of working less and being able to buy cheaper goods might sound great to someone who’s working their behind off and doing well, but not so much for those forced to sit on the sidelines. As I recently commented on an Anti-Trump Trade Policy Video, “How is the guy, in your example, supposed to go to Wal-Mart to buy an imported Chinese TV, if he has no job and is stuck on food stamps, unemployment or welfare? And, why is the poverty rate in the U.S. higher than it was 30 years ago?”

If you think a policy resulting in the siphoning away of $4 trillion in national wealth and 6 million manufacturing jobs is somehow winning, then perhaps that’s why you’re not. Maybe Mr. Trump is more knowledgeable than thou, at least when it comes to the economy.


U.S. Census Bureau – Trade in Goods with China

Bureau of Labor Statistics – CES Establishment Data – Manufacturing

U.S. Census Bureau – Income and Poverty in the United States: 2013

Real GDP Per Capita — Dead!

Moving Forward — Without Obama

* By: Larry Walker, Jr. *

Why do I get the eerie feeling that we’ve gotten nowhere in the last four years? The answer is because we’ve gone precisely nowhere with Obama. As the chart above displays, on a per capita basis, real gross domestic product has declined by a cumulative -0.20% during Obama’s four-year term (through Q1 2012).

President’s Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both inherited rather weak economies. Each achieved real GDP per capita growth of 1.52% in the first year in office, but by the second year, Reagan’s cumulative GDP had declined to -1.35%, while Clinton’s rate climbed to 4.34%. Yet by the end of the fourth year, Reagan’s policies resulted in cumulative GDP per capita growth of 8.47%, versus Clinton’s 8.19%. Man, whatever Reagan was onto needs to be codified and replayed, over and over and over again. Needless to say, both were overwhelmingly re-elected.

George W. Bush inherited a really crummy economy. After only achieving real per capita growth of 0.08% in his first year, by his fourth, Bush’s policies had grown the economy to cumulative real GDP per capita of 5.06%. And with that, Bush ’43 was easily re-elected.

The policies of Reagan, Clinton and Bush ’43 moved America ‘forward’. That’s what I call progress – moving the economy forward in real and measurable terms. Terms that every American could see, touch and feel in their own billfolds, as real GDP per capita was spread around, lifting many from poverty and mediocrity into new realities.

Why Real GDP Per Capita?

Why measure GDP on a per capita basis? GDP is an aggregate figure which does not consider differing sizes of nations. Therefore, it should be stated as GDP per capita (per person) in which total GDP is divided by the resident population on a given date.

Why use chained dollars? When comparing GDP figures from one year to another, it is desirable to compensate for changes in the value of money – i.e., for the effects of inflation. The factor used to convert GDP from current to constant values in this way is called the GDP deflator. Unlike the Consumer price index, which measures inflation or deflation in the price of household consumer goods; the GDP deflator measures changes in prices of all domestically produced goods and services in the economy.

It is only by comparing cumulative changes in real GDP per capita that we are able to understand whether today’s economic policies are helping or hurting. Furthermore, by making the comparison in 4 and 8 year increments we are able to determine whether to re-elect a POTUS or send him packing, or to continue with the same party affiliation or make a break towards independence. So where do we stand today?

GDP is Dead

Although Barack Obama also inherited a bad deal, his policies made it worse. The economy was declining at a real per capita rate of -1.27% in 2008, but by the end of 2009, Obama turned that into a decline of -4.33%. That’s a fact. Then, by the end of his second year, Obama’s stimulus programs resulted in a slight improvement, as the economy achieved negative cumulative growth of -2.15%. Although similar to Reagan’s second year decline to -1.36%, that’s where all similarities end.

Now in his fourth year (as of Q1 2012), Obama has achieved cumulative real GDP per capita growth of -0.20%. Compared to Reagan, Clinton, and Bush ‘43’s fourth year benchmarks of 8.47%, 8.19% and 5.06%, Obama is clearly a first-term loser. In absolute terms, the economy has gone nowhere under Obama. In terms that really matter, inflation adjusted dollars, as a percentage of the population; the economy hasn’t moved at all under the policies of Barack Obama. We are still below zero as far as real per capita growth – below zero, in spite of $6.3 trillion of additional debt. If Barack Obama is re-elected, he will be the only POTUS in modern history to be reinstated based on driving our economy into the ground.


“If you cry ”Forward” you must be sure to make clear the direction in which to go. Don’t you see that if you fail to do that and simply call out the word to a monk and a revolutionary, they will go in precisely opposite directions?” ~ Anton Chekhov

Forward? Yes, we will be moving forward – without Obama. The distraction of rising student loan interest rates is irrelevant in a shrinking economy. The concepts of a fair shot and a fair share are inapposite and unworthy of further discussion given the circumstances. And this garbage about being the only American around capable of giving a nod to take out a dangerous radical jihadist is just that – garbage.

I care about my children, my grandchildren, my parents, my sisters, my friends, my business, my customers, my community and my neighbors, but I could care less about Afghanistan. Why are Americans still dying in that cesspool? If Obama really wants to take responsibility for all of his actions, then why not include the fact that 69% of U.S. Afghan War casualties have occurred during his 39 month command? Explain that! How did Obama manage the war for only 30% of the time, 3 years out of 10, yet wind up responsible for 69% of the casualties?

Between the trail of blood, death and destruction abroad and his tanking of the economy at home there’s really no reason to grant Obama a second chance. It’s time for Obama to give up the keys, stop impersonating a president, and go home. Only new leadership will move America forward.


Bureau of Economic Analysis, Table 7.1. Selected Per Capita Product and Income Series in Current and Chained Dollars (A) (Q)


Per Capita Product and Income

Is Mitt Romney Severely Conservative?

* Try Moderately Severe, or Severely Moderate!

* By: Larry Walker, Jr. *

Mitt Romney told a gathering of conservative leaders and activists Friday that he is severely conservative, or something. “I was a severely conservative Republican governor,” Romney told the audience regarding his time in office, pointing out his support of traditional marriage and abstinence education. Sure Mitt and maybe God resides near a star called Kolob. Hey, I’ll send you a quarter so you can call someone who gives a flip!

Now being far more conservative than Mitt, I’m not so certain that government should even be dabbling in matters of marriage and education. Thus, Mitt’s entire premise, in and of itself, isn’t all that conservative. The often heard proclamation, “Get the government off my back, and out of my way,” is a severely conservative position, while Romney’s idea of conservatism is nothing but a weak watered down sound bite.

Although it may be true that Romney never worked a day in Washington, his signature Massachusetts health care law, or as Rick Santorum coined it, “the stepchild of Obamacare,” made it all the way to the top. Do we really want the guy who invented Obamacare presiding as chief executive over the nation? Lack of tangible experience, and being the inventor of the vilest piece of legislation ever, are precisely why Romney should be written-off.

It’s interesting that the only 2012 Republican candidate mentioned in the Reagan Diaries is Newt Gingrich. There was no mention of a severely conservative Mitt Romney at all. But of course, back then Mitt was busy roaming the earth proclaiming that, “There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God,” or something.

And what was that idea of young Gingrich that Mitt claims Reagan so disliked, again? Oh yeah, according to pages 123 – 124 of the Reagan Diaries, Newt’s idea for addressing the 1984 budget deficit was to “freeze the budget at the 1983 level. Gosh, what a horrible idea! But Mitt is so severely conservative that he’s been bashing Newt over this horrid, 30-year-old, position for month’s now.

Although Romney has publicly proclaimed that he will “repeal Obamacare,” a quick review of the U.S. Constitution failed to locate any passage granting the President of the United States the authority for repealing any law. And even worse, one of Romney’s advisors went on record stating, “We’re not going to do repeal …” Is telling conservatives that you will do something that you know you won’t, in any way severely conservative?

Romney has also come out recently in support of indexing the minimum wage, to rise automatically to keep pace with inflation. So is allowing the government to fix wages (i.e. price fixing), instead of allowing market forces to control the economy a severely conservative position?

Finally, Romney’s position on illegal immigration is for the government to sit back and rely on self-deportation. Even though Romney’s own grandparents and great-grandparents self-deported from the United States to Mexico, in the 19th Century, it wasn’t like they weren’t being chased by the U.S. Marshal and a host of deputies. Far from being severely conservative, Mitt’s reliance on self-deportation isn’t even mildly conservative, it’s at best lukewarm.

  • Is bashing young Newt’s idea of freezing the federal budget at the 1983 level a severely conservative position?

  • Was advocating for and signing Romneycare into law in some way severely conservative?

  • Is publicly stating he will repeal Obamacare, while privately planning not to repeal it a severely conservative design?

  • Is supporting the indexing of the minimum wage a severely conservative position?

  • Is relying on illegal immigrants to deport themselves somehow severely conservative?

I would say that Mitt Romney is severely something, but it’s not conservative. Maybe he’s severely moderate, or suffering from a moderately severe case of Amnesia, but whatever he’s got, I want nothing to do with it.

“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!” So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.” ~ Revelation 3:15-17


A Defining Moment

Mitt Romney’s Defining Moment | Indexing the Minimum Wage

Is Mitt Romney a Liberal?

By: Larry Walker, Jr.

As Economist Thomas Sowell relays, in his piece entitled, A Defining Moment, “Mitt Romney has come out in support of indexing the minimum wage law, to have it rise automatically to keep pace with inflation.”

But according to Dr. Sowell,

“We have gotten so used to seeing unemployment rates of 30 or 40 percent for black teenage males that it might come as a shock to many people to learn that the unemployment rate for sixteen- and seventeen-year-old black males was just under 10 percent back in 1948. Moreover, it was slightly lower than the unemployment rate for white males of the same age.”

You may read the full text at Jewish World Review.

So what happened? Liberals imposed a series of minimum wage laws, virtually assuring today’s devastating rates of black teenage unemployment. So is Mitt Romney a Liberal? I can’t say for sure, but he’s most definitely not a conservative.

That’s right, lie to us Mitt. For we must defeat Obama at all costs – even if that means deceiving and destroying the Conservative movement, in the process. Will a real conservative please stand up and challenge this walking disaster before it’s too late?

Will Mitt Romney Repeal Obamacare?

* Does a President have that authority?

* By: Larry Walker, Jr. *

In his Nevada victory speech, Mitt Romney once again publicly declared, “I will repeal Obamacare”. How so? Will Willard Mitt Romney single-handedly repeal Obamacare?

Although I am in favor of repealing Obamacare, and replacing it with a free-market solution, the last time I checked the Constitution, I wasn’t able to locate any passage granting the President of the United States the sole authority for repealing any law. Frankly I’m tired of hearing the same old false promise over and over again.

The truth is that in order to repeal or amend any federal legislation, Congress is required to follow the same procedures used in passing any new legislation. In other words, a new bill must be introduced by Congress either repealing or amending the existing law, and then it must pass both Houses of Congress, before being signed by the President.

So although the currently Republican controlled House of Representatives would favor repeal, the Democratic controlled Senate would not. And unless the Republican Party is able to win the presidency, along with a substantial majority in the Senate, while maintaining its present majority in the House; Mitt Romney won’t be repealing anything (i.e. He won’t be signing any repeal legislation.). As far as I’m concerned it’s just words.

What’s disheartening is that while Romney has made this bold proclamation publicly, literally hundreds of times, offstage as Ben Domenech notes in his Transom, Mitt Romney’s advisors have now advised him to support not repealing Obamacare. Norm Coleman, an advisor to Romney, went on record saying:

“We’re not going to do repeal. You’re not going to repeal Obamacare… It’s not a total repeal… You will not repeal the act in its entirety, but you will see major changes, particularly if there is a Republican president… You can’t whole-cloth throw it out. But you can substantially change what’s been done.”

Now I took Romney’s ridiculous blurb about fixing any holes in the safety net that exists for the very poor, for whom he is otherwise unconcerned, as a joke. Thanks Mitt, for keeping the very poor out of the way, and in everlasting poverty [sarcasm]! But his ongoing pandering plea to conservatives, that giving him the nomination will somehow empower a president Romney to repeal Obamacare, or any other law, is outright dishonest.

It’s hard to see how Romney’s practice of discrediting Newt Gingrich, alienating hundreds of thousands of Reagan conservatives in the process, can aid in the party’s winning or maintaining substantial majorities in both houses of Congress, let alone winning the presidency. I haven’t heard Romney mention anything about that. All I’ve heard him ramble on lately is what he will do by his lonesome, whether or not it’s reasonably possible, or even constitutional.

But aside from that, in the remote possibility that Republicans were able to win substantial majorities in both Houses along with a Romney presidency, what would a Romney Administration replace Obamacare with? Wouldn’t we just wind up with fifty state-run Romneycare’s?

Talk is cheap. Dishonesty is worthless.

That’s right, lie to us Mitt. For we must defeat Obama at all costs – even if that means deceiving and destroying the Conservative movement, in the process. Will a real conservative please stand up and challenge this walking disaster before it’s too late?

Mitt Romney’s Pro-Immigration Rant

* Leading with the chin. *

* By: Larry Walker, Jr. *

Mitt Romney argued haphazardly, in the January 26th GOP Debate, that he is pro-immigrant, because his father was born in Mexico. Ah, so that’s it. He shouted, “Mr. Speaker, I’m not anti-immigrant. My father was born in Mexico…” That little proclamation was worse than his implication that Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts somehow help create jobs in America. When I heard the former, my first thought was, ‘what does that have to do with being pro-immigrant’? And upon hearing the latter, I laughed out loud.

Was Romney’s father a Mexican immigrant who waited in a long line to cross the U.S. border “legally”? Well, not exactly. I believe Mitt’s grandparents sprinted across the border twice; once as felony fugitives of the United States government, and the second time to escape a band of Mexican marauders. So it sounds more like a matter of self-deportation followed by an act of forced-deportation than anything else.

Frankly, I would have countered Mitt with, “And why don’t you explain to us all exactly how your father came to be born in Mexico, since you chose to go there?”

And what could Mitt say?

I mean, come on! When we think of American immigrants, we think of men and women who journeyed from afar seeking liberty, and a better way of life. But that’s not exactly the story of the Romneys.

Actually, Mitt Romney’s father George was born in a Mormon colony in Chihuahua, Mexico. This may mislead one to the assumption that his parents were down there doing some kind of missionary work when he was born, right? But, that’s not exactly the way it went down. So how did Mitt Romney’s father come to be born in Mexico?

The Romneys wound up in Mexico due to an act of self-deportation from the United States. And although it may be true that the Romneys immigrated from the U.S. to Mexico in the 1800s, fleeing as fugitives and likely forfeiting their rights to U.S. citizenship in the process, it would be false to imply that his father was ever an immigrant to the United States. That is, unless the Romneys actually did forfeit their rights to U.S. citizenship. And you know what that would mean.

The fact is that when Mitt Romney’s great-grandparents fled the U.S. for Mexico in the 1800s, they were actually “felony fugitives” of the United States government. And when they returned to the United States in 1912, they were running for their lives from Mexican Revolutionaries, who also despised the practice of polygamy. One could make the case that the Romneys re-entered the U.S. illegally, more so than that his father was a bona fide legal immigrant.

How Self-Deportation Works

The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was a federal enactment of the United States Congress that was signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. The act was designed to target the Mormon practice of plural marriage and the property dominance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Utah Territory.

In 1882 the Edmunds Act, also known as the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882, was passed by the United States Congress replacing the Morrill Act. This was part of what by then was a 20 year struggle by the US government to curb the LDS practice of plural marriage in Utah Territory and other locations in the American West. Among other things, the law made the practice of polygamy a felony and disenfranchised polygamists. As a result, over a thousand Latter-day Saint men and women were eventually fined and jailed. Some were sent as far away as Michigan to fulfill their terms.

The Edmunds Act not only reinforced the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act but also revoked polygamists’ right to vote, made them ineligible for jury service, and prohibited them from holding political office. Wow, that’s deep!

The Edmunds Act was later replaced by the Edmunds–Tucker Act of 1887. The new act prohibited the practice of polygamy and punished it with a fine of from $500 to $800 and imprisonment of up to five years. It also dissolved the corporation of the LDS church and directed the confiscation by the federal government of all church properties valued over a limit of $50,000. The act was enforced by the U.S. marshal and a host of deputies.

So to be straight up about it, Mitt Romney’s great-grandparents were polygamous Mormons who fled with their children from the United States to Mexico because of the federal government’s opposition to polygamy. Mormon genealogical records, among the most detailed and complete of any religion, show that two of Mitt Romney’s great-great grandfathers, Miles Romney and Parley Pratt, had 12 wives each. His grandparents, American born Gaskell Romney and Anna Amelia Pratt, immigrated to Mexico with their polygamous parents as children, were married in 1895 in Mexico, and lived in Colonia Dublán, Galeana, in the Mexican state of Chihuahua, where Mitt’s father George was born on July 8, 1907.

When the Mexican Revolution broke out in 1910, the Mormon colonies were endangered in 1911–1912 by raids from marauders. The Romney family then fled Mexico and returned to the United States in July 1912, leaving their home and almost all of their property behind. Mitt’s father George would later say, “We were the first displaced persons of the 20th century.”

Hogwash! The Romneys weren’t displaced, but were rather the first self-deported American citizens of the 19th century, and perhaps the only such in all of U.S. history. That is to say, they self-deported from their native country, after refusing to follow U.S. law for nearly two decades. And then were subsequently run out of Mexico by a group of well armed patriotic Mexicans. So if anything, the Romneys were self-displaced.

Is this why Mitt Romney is so passionate about the idea of self-deportation? I mean after all, out of every other presidential candidate, he would know a little more on this topic than anyone else, and certainly more than he lets on. I would contend that if Mitt Romney is somehow pro-immigrant, it has nothing to do with his legacy, but rather all to do with saying what voters seem to want to hear. But all this voter wants to hear is the truth.

That’s right, lie to us Mitt. For we must defeat Obama at all costs – even if that means deceiving and destroying the Conservative movement in America in the process. Will someone please stand up and challenge this walking disaster before it’s too late? When your opponent leads with the chin, that’s when you go for the jugular. And someone needs to do just that, because it’s starting to smell like 2008 all over again.

I honestly can’t get with Mitt Romney’s background anymore than I could ever get with the current abandoned anchor-POTUS’. If Romney is the best that conservatives can produce, good luck to you all with that. I would rather stake my last dollar on the real deal, even if it means defeat. I don’t know where you stand, but for me it’s principle over politics.

“When a man becomes a citizen of the United States under the Constitution, he cannot cease to be a citizen, except by expatriation for the commission of some crime by which his citizenship shall be forfeited.” ~ Sen. Jacob Howard

Also see:

Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney’s Family Tree


FAIR USE NOTICE: “Hope n’ Change” Cartoons may be freely reposted for non-profit use without additional permission, but must contain the full header, author’s name, and copyright information. Material from “Hope n’ Change” Cartoons may not be collected, printed, or sold in any form without specific permission from the author – who may be, for all you know, a bloodsucking parasitic lawyer just aching to file a lawsuit, take your life savings, and leave nothing more than your dried and desiccated carcass like a dead mayfly on a windowsill.