Last Updated:October 22 @ 11:43 am

Bozell: Pushing Conservatives Off the Fiscal Cliff

By Brent Bozell

The conventional wisdom has emerged that in order to avoid the so-called "fiscal cliff," politicians in Washington must agree to some method of tax increases ("revenue") -- which will be real, even if low taxes are not the cause of our ills -- alongside some kind of promise of spending restraint on entitlement programs, which is our problem, and which no one believes Washington will restrain.

The American left and our "objective" journalists -- same thing, I know -- are not helping the nation balance its budget. As usual, these partisan hacks are obsessed with tearing the Republican coalition apart, limb from limb. By empowering the GOP moderates, they drive the conservatives into exile. These liberals are dishonest but not dumb. They have no intention of honoring a pledge to curtail wasteful spending. What they want is GOP civil war.

On Nov. 27, the front page of The Washington Post exemplified the media's peculiar method of portraying the two sides. "Republicans begin to challenge the reign of an anti-tax enforcer," they triumphantly proclaimed for the GOP moderates. The Democrats drew this headline: "White House builds case for middle-class tax cuts."

So where does this leave conservatives? The brass-knuckled enemy of the middle class. This isn't fairness or balance. It's just another shameless day in the funhouse of liberal media distortion.

Post reporter Aaron Blake wrote the story on the revolt against Grover Norquist. The Post made their emphasis even more obvious in their free commuter tabloid called Express, which splashed this headline over Blake's story: "IS THE GOP OVER GROVER?"

Unsurprisingly, Blake admits mid-story that the shift away from a no-new-taxes pledge "has been encouraged by Democrats, who have worked to make Norquist the face of GOP obstruction." This could be the media's motto: "All the News That's Encouraged by Democrats."

The same angle screamed from the television. On ABC's "World News," anchor Diane Sawyer proclaimed, "We did see a sign the paralysis may be ending, a Republican mutiny against a man who had convinced them to take a pledge." The graphic on screen read "Tax Revolt." George Orwell Time: only in liberal newsrooms is there such a thing as a "tax revolt" to raise taxes. On "CBS This Morning," co-host Charlie Rose pushed Sen. Bob Corker to say he would "forgo the pledge because it is outdated, and the country's problems are too big."

Since when is a pledge outdated? Can one date a promise?

Now ask this question: who is the Left's version of Grover Norquist? Who is the lobbyist-slash-"obstacle" who has threatened Democratic candidates not to bend on any limitation on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

Only one paragraph buried inside the Nov. 27 Post mentioned any pressure from leftist hardliners. "A coalition of union groups aired ads" during NBC's Thanksgiving broadcast of the Macy's parade in key states, "urging Congress to resist cutting entitlement programs." The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare has collected 65,000 signatures urging Congress to reject "any proposal that cuts or fundamentally changes earned benefits from our social insurance safety net."

These "hands off the safety net" socialists at NCPSSM don't even acknowledge mathematics. On its Facebook page, it touts a quote from Rep. Xavier Becerra: "Social Security isn't about numbers. It's about people."

The Left is pretending that Obama's reelection is somehow a mandate for their agenda. But the president's constant campaign mantra promised a "balanced approach" of tax hikes and spending cuts.

"You can't reduce the deficit unless you take a balanced approach that says, 'We've gotta make government leaner and more efficient,'" the president told CBS anchor Scott Pelley in September, and the rich need "to do a little bit more."

Conservatives laugh -- and everyone else should laugh -- when Obama says he's for "leaner and more efficient" government. But that is what he pledged to the electorate. If he has a "mandate," it's not for the leftist hard line.

Or is this pledge also "outdated"?

The unions and "progressive" groups like NCPSSM met with Obama at the White House on Nov. 13 and came away proclaiming they were encouraged by his resolve to force higher taxes on the rich and preserve entitlements. The TV networks barely noticed it happened.

ABC skipped it. NBC's Kristen Welker suggested before the meeting that Obama would start "a renewed push to lawmakers and labor officials today to avoid the looming fiscal cliff." On the next morning, CBS's Bill Plante briefly mentioned "the signal he sent yesterday at a meeting with labor leaders that nothing is off the table, including programs like Medicare."

So if the dealmakers can't come to an agreement, and the country goes over a "fiscal cliff," journalists are determined to blame conservatives. Ironically, once taxes are raised, then conservatives are the ones who won't have any skin in the game.

---

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 8.3/10 (28 votes cast)
Bozell: Pushing Conservatives Off the Fiscal Cliff, 8.3 out of 10 based on 28 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

25 Comments

  1. cborgersComment by cborgers
    November 28, 2012 @ 6:43 am

    I think one of many things that many Republicans and many Democrats can agree on is that entitlement spending needs to be constrained. This makes it all the more unfortunate that the Republicans attacked the Democrats over and over again for proposing constraints on Medicare spending. Now, those constraints are part of the Obamacare law, and therefore the Republicans could (and probably should) have said “We applaud those reductions in Medicare spending, as we applaud constraint in entitlement spending in general, but we don’t approve of using the money to finance Obamacare”. That would have been a principled response that I would have respected (even though I would not have agreed).

    But the Republican response was instead “Listen, seniors, we would never do such a thing”. I think that amounted to putting election tactics over principle, and over the long-term interest of the country.

    Similarly, both parties announce that they will never touch Social Security. I think that’s entirely irresponsible. Somebody needs to say “It’s not an entitlement, it’s a safety net. You get what you need to have a decent old age, but if you are already wealthy in your old age, then please don’t ask the tax payers to top it off generously.”

    I know people will say to this “I paid into the system all my life, and now I am supposed to get out less than I put in??” But this question reveals a misunderstanding. I pay into Social Security to support today’s old people, not to support myself in the future. That’s how Social Security started — as soon as there was a generation of contributors, there was also, at the same time, a generation of beneficiaries who had never paid in anything, and were now too old to make a living for themselves. That’s how one still has to view it. Today’s contributors pay the benefits of today’s beneficiaries. This is how it is, and this is how it SHOULD be. We are, in fact, responsible for the old people among us, if we want to be a society adhering to the traditional ethics of the Western world (or, for that matter, the ethics of most human civilizations).

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 2.5/5 (13 votes cast)
    • powertothepeopleComment by powertothepeople
      November 28, 2012 @ 11:18 am

      Simple explanation for the Republitard’s cave…its called getting votes!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.3/5 (7 votes cast)
    • CarmineComment by Carmine
      November 28, 2012 @ 12:05 pm

      But that didn’t work. They didn’t get the votes. Look who won.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • bna42Comment by bna42
      November 28, 2012 @ 1:09 pm

      “I pay into Social Security to support today’s old people, not to support myself in the future. That’s how Social Security started. . .Today’s contributors pay the benefits of today’s beneficiaries. This is how it is, and this is how it SHOULD be.”

      NO, that isn’t the way it started, and that’s NOT the way it should be. It IS that way because the government reneged on its original promises they made when the program was introduced, and then they took the money that was supposed to remain in the Social Security Trust Fund and squandered it on other programs.

      Social Security was sold to the people that it would be self-sufficient, it would be completely voluntary, and the taxes paid into the program would never be used for other purposes. So don’t try to sell that liberal lie that the younger people were to pay benefits for the seniors. Just as in anything else, the program was functioning until the federal government decided they wanted the Trust Fund for welfare programs.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (6 votes cast)
    • TomOTRComment by TomOTR
      November 28, 2012 @ 2:43 pm

      I would disagree. I am retired and drawing Soc. Sec. but would favor dropping all social programs from the Federal Budget. Privatize all social programs and stop penalizing the savers and investors. It’s the only way we will ever be able to balance the budget. Draconian? Perhaps but until folks are forced off the public teat, they will never learn to be self sufficient. Will there be blood in the streets? Yes but not as much as when the country goes broke with no more welfare available. While we’re at it, cut all subsidies and all foreign aid. I’m not fool enough to believe this could be done in one fell swoop but we could do it the same way we got into this mess; one program at a time. All Government (federal, state, and local) employees should be on 401K or similar programs that allow folks to prepare for retirement. No more retiring at government expense. If you didn’t earn it and save it, you’re out in the cold. Everybody should be paying taxes but no more than 20% total. That includes federal,state,property,highway etc. If people have skin in the game they are far less likely to vote for higher taxes. All should be taxed at the same rate. Those who are more fortunate will pay more money only because they earned more. Obviously, we could go on but you get the drift–
      much smaller government and much more personable responsibility.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.4/5 (5 votes cast)
    • gopluvaComment by gopluva
      November 28, 2012 @ 9:52 pm

      But we did pay in as did our employers, and now we are old and SS is all we have to live on and looked forward to it. We are not rich by anyones measure and we would lose our home if we lose SS.If they change anything it should only be for people not yet on it because most people on it are dependant on it.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • ClarkCComment by ClarkC
      November 29, 2012 @ 7:20 am

      cborgers: You don’t understand what happened with Medicare in the Obamacare bill. The Democrats did not “put spending restraints” on Medicare. They simply cut the amount that will be paid to hospitals and doctors. You cannot cut payments to a level below the costs of the services provided and then say that you have “found ways to save money,” as the Democrats claimed. Google “Mayo Clinic Medicare” and you will find that the Mayo Clinics (they run several nationwide now) stopped accepting Medicare patients because of inadequate payments, and this was BEFORE Obamacare. Many doctors in the country refuse to accept new Medicare patients. This is what happens when the government tries to “save money” by simply refusing to pay. Get into a search engine and find stories about “doctors not accepting Medicare patients” and so on.

      Why don’t the Democrats just announce that payments to doctors and hospitals will be cut another 50% next year, and then claim that more “savings” have been found?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • stickmanComment by stickman
      November 29, 2012 @ 5:10 pm

      For sure you are smoking weed if you think Democrats think “entitlement” (not social security – that’s a government mandated paid for by the recipients) need to be reigned in. The Democrats, starting perhaps even before LBJ have NEVER done anything put promote a welfare state for destroying the family, unwed mothers that have baby after baby to raise their take from the government dole and all else; pay people for near two years to not work nor even look for work as the government continues to destroy what manufacturing and small business we have remaining in this country. A nation of burger flippers and service (servants) industry.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • tfanta05Comment by tfanta05
      December 1, 2012 @ 11:50 am

      Let the time run out. If Obama does not give in, then it’s on his head. The taxes will automaticly go back to what they were under Clinton’s administration.
      Obama will not want this because everyone’s taxes will go up not just the rich as the democrats keep saying. Which is also a lie. Eventually Obama would have to tax the middle class too. The taxes on the rich would only run our government for a matter of days. This is nothing but partisan ****

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  2. Jota_Comment by Jota_
    November 28, 2012 @ 6:59 am

    This whole issue does not make any sense

    The Republicans, on the one hand, don’t want rates to change but are willing to give more of their money to the government by having fewer deductions, which makes the Democrats look good by having a smaller deficit and more money for all the bribes they offer to get elected

    And the Democrats are not jumping on it?

    I would think they would say, and we are willing to cut the rates even more if there are zero deductions

    But oh no, the Democrats want higher rates, which some lobbyist will have a bill passed next year with a whole new set of deductions, to pay even less money to the government, which will make the Republicans only look like the long suffering victims of government extortion, but can be laughing all the way to the bank

    And the Republicans are not jumping on it?

    The video story about Benghazi almost looks plausible by comparison

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.3/5 (7 votes cast)
    • BobinmsComment by Bobinms
      November 28, 2012 @ 11:32 am

      It seems to me that the Democrats want higher rates to “bust” the Norquest pledge. Otherwise they’d be happy with anything that produces more revenue.

      On the other hand they, both Dems & Repubs, want to raise revenue by closing the loopholes.

      The definition of a loophole has changed from its traditional definition. In the past a loophole was a flaw in the tax law that tax accountants and lawyers exploited to allow clients to avoid taxes. Tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion is not. Currently loopholes have been re-defined to include tax deductions that are specifically identified in the tax law for all to see as legal and beneficial to society. How a provision clearly set forth in tax law becomes a loophole is a testament to the skill of the media at twisting and defining what is correct. Public acceptance of the new definition is a testament to the public’s ignorance. For example, the tax code says that charitable deductions are allowable. But in our world today it is a loophole. Deductions have positive connotations and loopholes (while legal) have negative connotations. So we simply change a religious contribution from being a deduction to a loophole. As Paul Harvey would say “and that’s the way it is” (in today’s land of OZ).

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (7 votes cast)
  3. reelmanComment by reelman
    November 28, 2012 @ 10:08 am

    ARE WE ALREADY OVER THE FISCAL CLIFF?
    America went over the Fiscal Cliff years ago.
    The 16+ trillion of debt plus the ramped up
    freebies and older obligations means we have been
    realistically in the “Fiscal Canyon” for at least a decade.

    The tax thieves that cleaned out the treasury
    are now going to solve a debt problem that will
    take at least 20 years? Do you really accept that?
    How many lesser problems have they ever “solved” for
    over a year or two (by postponing reality)? Many.

    Taxing the rich is a bold lie. Mouthy billionaire Warren Buffett
    has 44 billion but if he gave every cent to the federal
    gov-meant today that runs the monster socialist
    state of America for 5 days. Yes, its that bad.
    Its the spending stupid and always has been.
    The pawn media fooled you again with class warfare lies.

    The thieves are the 30+ year power hungry congressional folks
    and their penchant for toxic socialist policies that
    grow the monster gov-meant, create dependency and buy votes.

    Any attempts to freeze, reduce, consolidate or reform
    (outside the military) are met with angry warnings of doom which
    only keeping the status quo socialist minds in charge can
    remedy. Please, all of WeThePeople are not that dumb.

    >>>Now the socialist game is to get a lot of taxes past the Republicans
    then blame them for the further rotting of America…all the while
    boldy lying, boldly borrowing, boldly printing money and blaming
    demons instead of their wild spending toxic socialist policies.<<<

    Gird your loins.
    (theconservativecrawfish.wordpress.com)

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (17 votes cast)
    • powertothepeopleComment by powertothepeople
      November 28, 2012 @ 11:26 am

      Yes, strap up boys and girls as the carnival in DC will find ever better ways to blow the new revenue “taxes”. They have a lot of experience at this type of thing.

      Run up huge deficits…pay it down with more deficit spending…call it a day.

      I really do believe most Americans are too ill informed or plainly naive as to the state of the country. Most people can’t balance their check books so how the hell can they understand the slight of hand tricks the c,clowns at the treasury play with the numbers.

      I have watched these games be played for 40 years now and the same thing happens year after year. Raise some taxes, spend it all on pet projects and blame the other guy for the problem. All the while, the debt goes to the moon and Uncle Ben tells us there is no inflation! Guess he never gets out to the grocery store much…or anywhere esle!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (9 votes cast)
    • drifterdanComment by drifterdan
      November 28, 2012 @ 12:25 pm

      It is the same smoke and mirrors game that congress has been using for many years. They are more interested in fighting with each other than solving a problem.

      Spending needs to be cut plain and simple. Real cuts, not reducing the amount of increase and calling them cuts.

      There is so much waste and fraud in the government programs that billions could be saved by going after the waste and fraud.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  4. clarkentComment by clarkent
    November 28, 2012 @ 10:35 am

    No matter what anybody says, taxes are going up. There are too many cowards in D.C. and they don’t really care about any thing but themselves. America is on the wrong path. Gov’t influence must be reduced before ANY kind of recovery can be made.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.1/5 (13 votes cast)
  5. FrogmanComment by Frogman
    November 28, 2012 @ 10:40 am

    This wrangling about the fiscal cliff is a complete and utter joke. We went off the cliff all they are doing is trying to slow down the collapse. We simply are on an unsustainable course and it is going to end. PERIOD. Currently we have a 16.5 trillion dollar debt with roughly 70 trillion in unfunded liabilities on top of that. HELLOOOO! Game over! Here’s a good little article.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323353204578127374039087636.html

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.0/5 (8 votes cast)
  6. gimmesometruthComment by gimmesometruth
    November 28, 2012 @ 10:56 am

    It’s time to schedule more bread handouts and circus entertainment for the American Sheeple.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.4/5 (7 votes cast)
  7. powertothepeopleComment by powertothepeople
    November 28, 2012 @ 11:29 am

    Keep an eye on the horizon for those Chinese naval ships coming to collect their due from broke Uncle Sam! Guess we will have to pay them in land or National Parks….cause our money won’t be worth squat!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (7 votes cast)
  8. powertothepeopleComment by powertothepeople
    November 28, 2012 @ 11:31 am

    Somebody call Warren Buffet…he has the answer…tax the rich. It will pay about 4 days government costs. What a deal Warren!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)
  9. dsmetatrader9999Comment by dsmetatrader9999
    November 28, 2012 @ 11:37 am

    WAKE UP FOLKS! THE US GOVERNMENT WENT BANKRUPT IN 1933! We went over the Fiscal Cliff back then. We have been in the canyon ever since! The Federal Reserve foreclosed on us, FDR seized all our gold and turned it over to the Fed. The Fed has been in ownership of America ever since. When they passed the 16th Amendment it was never ratified, but they never told the People that. They just went on and made everyone believe it was passed and the government set up the IRS as the Fed’s collection agent and bullyboy. The purpose of the Income Tax is not to run the government like everyone wants us to believe. No, it is to pay the Fed for their crooked national debt, which Congress, acting as their puppets, keeps running up higher and higher with their deficit spending practices. It does not matter who is running things in Congress, Republican or Democrat, the Fed controls both parties through various means.

    No, the solution folks is very simple:

    1. Fire Congress! Vote out every Congressman and Senator who has been there longer than 1 term. Vote in new Congressmen and Senators who support the Conservative agenda. (go to http://www.kickthemallout.com for additional info)

    2. Pass the Fair Tax (go to http://www.fairtax.org for a full description and how to promote it). This bill eliminates the Income Tax, and all taxes that drive the price of goods up, including Corporate, Gift and Estate taxes. It replaces these taxes with a national sales tax of around 23%. Since there is no income or corporate taxes there are no loopholes or deductions to worry about. There are no reasons for companies to relocate overseas. The corporations and wealthy individuals can bring their money back to the US. Foreign investors will move their money here to invest. The employment problem will be solved.

    3. Enact the Monetary Reform Act and bring about full monetary reform of our currency and banking practices.
    The Federal Reserve Act needs to be repealed and Congress and the US Treasury need to take back their Constitutional power to issue and regulate our currency. Including gold and silver they need to include the more modern methods of creating currency using electronic methods as well. Our currency needs to not be based on debt but on the full faith and credit of the US, as it is now, only without the debt created through the Fed. Congress can print as much money as they need to pay off the debt and issue funds to do the business of the government.

    4. Outlaw Fractional Reserve Banking practices in our banking system. Banks should operate using 100% reserve. They should pay higher interest on their depositors funds and loan only what they have on deposit from their investors. This will put total discipline on the bankers.

    5. The States, County and major cities should have their own publicly owned banks, like in North Dakota, which has had one since 1919. This bank has always been in the black. By having the funds coming from “Main Street” kept locally Main Street will now be free from the domination of Wall Street on our local economies.

    By implementing these types of reforms we can totally free up the economy to function in a typical capitalist free market style.

    Without reforms like this being put into place everything else going on in Washington is just an illusion put out their by the “Wizard of Oz” bankers.

    For a fuller description of monetary reform go to (www.webofdebt.com and see the video “Secrets of OZ” at http://www.kickthemallour.com plus look up the Monetary Reform Act on Google)

    In the meantime….”We’re off to see the Wizard, the wonderful Wizard of Oz”. Happy Trails folks.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  10. wallybluComment by wallyblu
    November 28, 2012 @ 2:46 pm

    How about spending cuts now and tax increases in 2015.

    Let’s see how that flies.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  11. fubar22Comment by fubar22
    November 28, 2012 @ 2:54 pm

    Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
    Security (FICA) Program. He promised :

    1.) That participation in the Program would be
    Completely voluntary,

    No longer Voluntary

    2.) That the participants would only have to pay
    1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
    Incomes into the Program,

    Now 7.65%
    on the first $90,000

    3.) That the money the participants elected to put
    into the Program would be deductible from
    their income for tax purposes each year,

    No longer tax deductible

    4.) That the money the participants put into the
    independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the
    general operating fund, and therefore, would
    only be used to fund the Social Security
    Retirement Program, and no other
    Government program, and,

    Under Johnson the money was moved to
    The General Fund and Spent

    5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

    Under Clinton & Gore
    Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

    Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
    now receiving a Social Security check every month –
    and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
    the money we paid to the Federal government to ‘put
    away’ — you may be interested in the following :
    ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —-
    Q : Which Political Party took Social Security from the
    independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the
    general fund so that Congress could spend it?

    A : It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
    controlled House and Senate.
    ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— –
    Q : Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
    deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

    A : The Democratic Party.
    ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —–
    Q : Which Political Party started taxing Social
    Security annuities?

    A : The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
    ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the
    Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
    ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— -
    Q : Which Political Party decided to start
    giving annuity payments to immigrants?

    JIMMY CARTER and the Democratic Party.
    Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
    began to receive Social Security payments! The
    Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
    even though they never paid a dime into it!
    ———— — ———— ——— —– ———— ——— ———
    Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
    the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

    And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  12. Pingback: Opinion Forum » What’s a Conservative to Do?

  13. stickmanComment by stickman
    November 29, 2012 @ 5:14 pm

    Watch carefully the smoke and mirrors, watch as they reduce or take away the home mortgage interest deduction and some of those still marginal housing failures crash once again.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  14. gavinwcaComment by gavinwca
    November 29, 2012 @ 6:50 pm

    No one has to force the Conservatives off the cliff, the Rinos are running to the cliff and joyfully jumping to their death, like The sheepol they are .

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  15. gavinwcaComment by gavinwca
    November 29, 2012 @ 6:59 pm

    http://www.gopusa.com/cartoons/?subscriber=1

    This sight describes the Republicans on this issue

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Leave a Comment





  • "Bakers, florists, caterers, and now Christian churches are feeling the attack on the Bill of Rights by tolerent left imposing..." Comment by joe23006
    Posted in Criminalizing Christian Beliefs
  • "I believe it is against the law for a bar to serve an alcoholic drink to a person who is..." Comment by johnnylingo62
    Posted in Criminalizing Christian Beliefs
  • "Hey, Michelle, You need the job Hairy Weed is occupying in Washington. I know you would do a fantastic job of 'telling..." Comment by gopuc12450
    Posted in The Hunter Biden Chronicles

Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer