You are on page 1of 9

The intent to be comprehensive compels inclusion of info from all [validated] corners of the Internet and yields the

capacity to provide back-and-forth to those who remain modern-libs; included herein are two examples of such interactions, along with an encyclical from a local “Tea Party Patriots” leader and an essay on what [allegedly] motivates the male-of-the-species [and a few other examples of levity]. Again, whether it is ego or reality “speaking,” the motivation to provide these data is predicated on the view that they are not otherwise available…and are relevant to major contemporary concerns; although some may not view Holocaust Education as an earth-shattering concern, for example, the forces-at-play that have emerged [n.b., Hank wrote “This has to come from me if there is any chance of being accepted”] illustrate how elitist [know-it-all] insiders routinely and inevitably proclaim their view that only they can control the agenda [after it has been shown that the “Emperor is wearing no clothes”]. Ultimately, individuals are now empowered to decide whether the legislature should pass a bill that allegedly both satisfies the intent of both camps [Hank and Chuck] and is consistent with both party philosophies [promoting universal Holocaust Education without issuing a specific syllabus from Harrisburg’s PDE]. This dialogue with a thinking-lobbyist [using topic-headings from a “blast” based on Guzzardi’s views] was followed by a disclaimer that perhaps encompasses both great chunks of the Jewish community and results from the “Educational” efforts generated by the children of the Vietnam-Era within academe. Take them one-at-a-time; where might you disagree??? Some replies below. Perhaps not views as considered as yours but mine nonetheless. Guzzardi for Governor I can beat Tom Corbett for the nomination. Indeed, he is now drumming-up support in York. Ride the Wave - Vote the Independent Reform Republican Ticket Elect Independent Republicans to State Committee on May 20, 2014. He is dovetailing with this statewide effort. The Republican Primary on May 20th is where the action is. We need an alternative to broken promises and a failed leadership that has repeatedly sold out the base—and the Forgotten Taxpayer—for its personal political profit. I no longer have any sense of what the Republican base really looks like. I do not know enough to draw the line between “selling out” and compromising. Tax hikes are not a driving issue for me. My experience in the corporate world suggests that the private sector does not seem interested in taking over paying for things either – so who picks up the tab? The GOP base has three realms that encompass Foreign Policy [muscular, except for Rand Paul], Domestic Policy [fiscally balanced] and Social Policy [the prolifers]; as you know, I like a robust Foreign Policy, a non-profligate Domestic Policy, and a Libertarian Social Policy…all tethered to a strict-construction of the Constitution [whether it may be its original “intent” or “meaning”]…rather than viewing it as a “living” document that can be used to rationalize whatever an activist judge desires to rule. I will educate you regarding the distinction-with-a-difference between compromise and losing-principles. Tax-hikes allow for spending and thus must be disciplined. The

“tab” should be minimized on the federal level to security matters that the states cannot achieve, focused on the enumerated-powers [Article I, Section 9]. I am a Constitutionally-Centered Conservative. When you find we agree on core-principles, don’t assume we have to agree on everything. Agreed. But, as you are very wary of the feds, I am not convinced yet about the breadth of issues to keep with the states and localities. I acknowledge it sometimes does or could work, and that the federal government is certainly dysfunctional at the moment (however, not just because of Obama in my view) But, I feel at a minimum, there needs to be a national look at issues. Differences across state lines make some matters tough (THEROETICAL EXAMPLES NOT BASED ON SPECIFICS: until recently, a gay couple marries in one state and then a job transfer necessitates a move into a state that is more restrictive; one state adopts restrictive gun laws while the neighboring state does not resulting in people crossing state lines; one state restricts access to Schedule II medications and the next one doesn’t and drug trafficking between states becomes an issue). I get that the feds can step in on a federal offense if someone breaks the law going across state lines – but the situation, in my view, undermines what the first state did. I do not agree that you always have the freedom to up and move if you don’t like what your state is doing. Not that simple in real life, especially in a struggling economy. The states are labs and, thus, should be afforded maximal flexibility; competition among them will yield optimal outcomes [as is now occurring as a consensus develops on Gay Marriage]. The “Transportation” Bill This was top-down “tax and spend” legislation, pushed by Big Business, Big Labor, Left Wing Environmentalists and Big Government. Don’t know about this but on the surface not sure where big business and environmentalists come together on the same side. And while environmentalists do tend to be Ds, not sure all of their positions are “left wing.” In this case, everyone wanted spending. Sandusky is the 'X' factor in Corbett's Re-election. Tom Corbett's numbers are underwater, and he is finished-off politically when voters weigh the combination of the Sandusky Scandal and the $2.4 Billion annual perpetual gas tax hike. I am not troubled as you are by a tax hike per se. You should be, because it allows big-government to deny maximal [economic] freedom to the individual. The Pension-Bomb Union-controlled Corbett has yet to tackle the single greatest potential economic blackhole facing all Pennsylvanians; it is no longer possible to kick-the-can-down-the-road. See comment below about unions. This must be rectified ASAP. Education

“Vouchers for All” allows parents to choose which school is best for their kids. I have very mixed views on vouchers. Leave poorly functioning schools with no ability to ever come back as they lose their student base and related funding. By the time they are “motivated” (as the free market folks might suggest) to make things improve, I fear it may be too late to help and a community will lose its local school. I also am not a fan of for-profit charter schools. Competition should allow maximal empowerment to parents and localities, yielding enhanced outcomes; for example, Philly’s Charter Schools consistently out-perform the Public Schools [as long as the latter aren’t cheating]. The Economy A growing and productive economy is the only cure for poverty. This is perhaps a longterm view but one that seems to forget that there are people with very real needs now and probably forever. I also, as we have discussed, believe there are social issues (e.g., unintended pregnancies, efforts to engage men as fathers, effective strategies to help people transition from welfare back to work, education, etc.) that must be addressed before many are in a position to leverage a healthier economy. The private sector can help with social issues, for sure; but, the scale of the problem is too great to move forward without government intervention. Just bringing back jobs and making the world run on the basis of the “survival of the fittest” is not from my perspective sustainable. If we don’t stop the cycle of poverty from a social perspective, the weight of the poor on the economy will forever be a drain on those who have succeeded. Further, the low paying jobs of our economy really are low paying. The safety-net mustn’t become a hammock; the rest is commentary, particularly as redistributionalefforts hurt all parties [short- and long-term]. Guns I totally support, as per the U.S and Pa. Constitutions, enforcing the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms. While I respect the interpretation of the Constitution, I cannot endorse (other than theoretically saying it’s in the Constitution) a position that actively fosters an attitude that gun ownership is not a big deal. I am not swayed by the argument that someone needs a gun to protect themselves. To have a gun really at the ready to protect oneself in the moment of an emergency likely means that it is not locked away from a kid or others whose intentions may not be so “noble.” The risk far outweighs the benefits in my mind. I get it –amend the Constitution. That’s not happening so I believe tight restrictions and a lack of a cavalier attitude are needed. If you cannot tether your opinion either to the Constitution or to the deliberations of the Second Constitutional Convention that generated it, then you must respect the right to own a gun, even if you [and I] choose not to do so. Why not just be silent? Why choose to make it an example of your constitutional freedoms (even if it is)? Seems to me there are far more important issues on a constitutional conservative's agenda than actively touting gun ownership. Sorry but here I feel passionately, regardless of whether it is the "right" policy. I see no upside to using gun ownership as part of a policy platform, even if we can't take everyone's guns away. If one can suggest a waiting period or other restrictions for an abortion to "save" a "life,"then I think one can similarly advocate to do far more to make it difficult to get a gun that can kill someone very much alive. Call me a lefty if you must, but here I may just not be ra onal from your perspec ve. The

short-answer is that the 2nd Amendment immediately follows the 1st Amendment, to ensure the five explicit rights therein are enforced. Unionization Eliminating the automatic deduction of forced union dues from workers' paychecks [HB1507] is a critical step toward worker freedom of choice. I can perhaps buy into an opposition to mandatory dues deductions; but, I do not see the unions as inherently “evil.” Neither do I, for they serve a useful purpose to protect workers. The Democratic Party The Democrats are monolithic, at all levels of government. I do not believe the party is monolithic. However, I do agree that the Ds’ views are not as divergent as the Rs. Not sure having strong unified position is a bad thing, however. I think the Ds have developed a platform with which many within the party are comfortable. As I have said before, I think the R leadership does your party a great disservice when it continues to wade into issues like abortion. I believe the R platform (at least my memory of it) is out of sync with what you would call the forgotten taxpayer on social issues. I also think while people say they don’t want big government, they do like their Medicare and Social Security, etc. Try to find a Dem who deviates from Abortion-Orthodoxy [and has voted accordingly, and you lose Casey and Shipak]; the Dem platform includes anti-Zionism [remember the voice-vote rescinding only one of the three objectionable facets thereof?]. The GOP’s pro-life stance is greatly magnified by those who wish to reject its otherwise-desirable reforms but, yes, its platform should become far more Libertarian…which should be easily distinguishable from the “The Forgotten Taxpayer” metaphor. Big Government under BHO is far more than Medicare & SS, for we now have ObamaCare. The GOP-Controlled Legislature. When Sam Smith starts to worry, we know we are sending the right message. Daryl Metcalfe is The Forgotten Taxpayer's Friend. Daryl Metcalfe has cast five (5) very good, under-the-radar, votes AGAINST Welfare to the Wealthy and FOR Liberty, Economic Freedom and The Forgotten Taxpayer. Not all politics is local. Every Senator votes on every issue that impacts your life. I am coming to conclude there is an irony (perhaps even a hypocrisy) in my liberal views. If for a moment you can try to step away from the politics and even the Constitution, your emphasis on individual freedoms and liberty in many ways simply puts far more faith (than I) in humankind to do what is best for themselves and their community. While my heart breaks with compassion for those in need (and it genuinely does), I suppose I am rather paternalistic in my thinking about solutions. Fundamentally, I

suspect that could be construed as a lack of respect for or trust in the very people I wish to help. I am not sure, however, where that lands me in my thinking. Perhaps, I am assessing this all wrong (as I think not about politics but the human side of the equation). But my faith in the masses fails to live up to what I think one would need to put individual liberty first. Sad commentary on me, perhaps. A recent essay [the-greatconservative-debate] notes the distinctively American philosophy of government is that it should be limited, constitutional, and federal; thus, ancillary queries [Shouldprostitution-be-decriminalized?] are properly relegated to Debate Class, as you begin to recognize the danger of activist-judges, do-gooders, feel-gooders, … and an Imperial Presidency. Here is a back-and-forth from a high-quality Trial-Attorney, whose support for the Dems is NOT tethered to personal-interest, but whose philosophical perspective has clearly become embedded: [him] The Republicans, as presently constituted, have shown a penchant for non-stop politicking, unburdened by actually framing and offering ideas, propelled only by the fuel of criticizing the President & ignoring the path they created to where this country now finds itself: in the morass of a 2 party system, where one party has abdicated the integrity of idea exchange, dialogue and compromise. We do need the return of a real 2nd party, not the unfunny joke the t-party has made of the party formerly known as the Republicans. [me] I would argue that BHO is officially [via his OFA] engaged in non-stop politicking, to which the loyal-opposition reacts; it frames/offers ideas [including on ObamaCare] which are ignored by the media [Reps. Scalese, Price, etc.] but are necessarily fueled by anguish over how BHO is propelling the nation; they don’t ignore their past [such as Medicare D], but it’s dwarfed by the present/future [which has placed the country into a far worse status than a half-decade ago]. The Constitutional Conservatives function as the conscience of the otherwise compliant GOP-Establishment and engages in lively idea-exchange and dialogue; it seeks commonground but won’t compromise principles; the TEA [“Taxed Enough Already”] Party Movement is the best alternative to a 3rd Party, as it attempts to revitalize the GOP. I will circulate this back-and-forth in my next “blast” [anonymously, of course]. [him] Well said, but without merit or fact. Both parties are far less than they should be, but the Republican party as comandeered by the TEA party have no sense of how to govern a country of this size & multiplicity of views & needs. They don't try. They just hold governing hostage, abrogating the need to see and embrace compromise so that the right things move along the path toward happening.

[me] I have documented my assertions factually, incrementally; you have not mirrored this approach. Concur that both parties are suboptimal, but the Dems have been commandeered by BHO, whereas the GOP is resisting the TPM. The TPM has every sense of how to govern, predicated on the Constitution; it would not provide special favors to anyone [great and small] regardless of their political viewpoints. They accommodate needs by emphasizing federalism and, thus, state-level heterogeneity…and a maximal multiplicity of viewpoints/goals. They try all the time, witness [for example] the billion-dollar surplus just announced by Florida Governor Scott Walker [who will cut taxes as a result]. They failed to hold BHO hostage, even though Article I Section 7 empowers the House to appropriate [or not to do so]; BHO is getting both funding and debt-ceiling raises [with abandon]. They do not compromise principles to “get things done” because, far more often than not, the endpoint creates its own problems [such as ObamaCare]. [him] Your definition of resisting and mine differ substantially. So does our definition of governing vs the my way or no way mantra of the TEA group. [me] People should not vote for what they oppose, notwithstanding social-pressure delivered via the compliant media. BHO’s edicts reflect a my-way-or-no-way mentality, for [if nothing else] the TPM is not empowered to do anything. These are the views of Rob Boysen and, throughout, it should be noted that there is NOTHING herein that would prompt the “reasonable man” to attempt to use Radar, Sonar or a Geiger-Counter to try to detect an atom [or even a subatomic particle] of racism in anything promulgated [past/present/future] by the TEA [Taxed Enough Already] Party Movement. I would, of course, not concur with some of it [such as his gubernatorial prognostication], but his larger points regarding the Dems and the GOP are spot-on…as is his “message” regarding what patriotic Americans must do about it…NOW! Obama’s and the Democrat’s strategy from the beginning has been to overwhelm our economic system to the point of collapse and, when it finally happens, the Democrats will show their true colors and declare the United States to be a Socialist Republic. That’s their game plan and they’re doing a damned good job of winning it. Can we stop

it? Only if and it’s a big IF, the MAJORITY of Americans recognize what the Democrats have been doing for the past 100 years and especially for the 6 years and come together to stop it. Simply yelling at the TV and the internet news is not going to get the job done. Remember: The first part of solving a problem is to recognize THAT YOU HAVE A PROBLEM and then everyone must come together to solve and overcome “THE PROBLEM”. * I agree that the Republican Party and the Tea Party should unite as one and defeat the Progressive Liberal Democrats. However, there are a few things that we have to keep in mind about the Republican Party as well as the Tea Party. The Republican Party is still the "party of choice" for those of us that believe in Limited Government. However, to a large extent, the Republican Party has lost its way when it comes to Limited Government and Fiscal Responsibility, and although John Boehner owes his position as Speaker of the House to the Tea Party Movement, he and the Republican National Committee have declared all-out war on the Tea Party as of October 2013. The chief issue here is that John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and the GOP leadership in both Houses of Congress see the Tea Party as a threat to their power in Congress and in their ability to increase the size and scope of the Federal Government, and they are 100% right! They don't like having "Hall Monitors" in their "Play pen"! The Tea Party Movement, especially the Tea Party Patriots, will never compromise on our CORE Values which are Fiscal Responsibility, Limited Government and support of a Free Market Economy, and yet, since 2012, the Republican Party Leadership in Congress and the Republican National Committee have not only compromised their own principles, but ours as well. The Sequester cuts that were forged out of the 2011-2012 Continuing Resolution did in fact lower the deficit and it cut Federal spending by a paltry 60 Billion dollars, but when it came time this past November to renew that Continuing Resolution, John Boehner caved in to Obama and the Democrats and dismantled the Sequester cuts and INCREASED the Federal Budget. Does that sound like "Fiscal Responsibility" to you? I know it doesn't to me! We all remember what happened in 2010 when we elected over 80 new Republican Congressmen and Senators. From 2010-2011, the Republican Party and the Tea Party were almost joined at the hip in our efforts to repeal Obamacare; bring the deficit down and limit Federal spending. Then in 2012 the Republican Party all but abandoned its efforts to control spending and started the "appeasement" process with Obama and the Democrats. We, the Tea Party, thought in 2010 we had finally begun the process of electing "Citizen-Patriots" to our Congress, and in a few cases, we have, but in far too many cases, those that we helped to elect have abandoned the cause and have decided that rather than representing We the People, they would rather have the power and all of the trappings that go with being in the "Political Class" in Washington, D.C. and our State Capitols. Those are the "Republicans" that we're going to hold accountable in a big way in 2014! As 2014 unfolds, you will see a lot of elected Republicans all over the country being faced with primaries, and although none of our elected PA Congressional

Representatives will face a Primary, Governor Corbett will. Rest assured that Corbett will win the Primary against Bob Guzzardi, but he's going to get an earful from the Tea Party groups here in Pennsylvania. Corbett has totally lost any credibility he had with Conservatives and if he does win the Primary (and he probably will), I'll hold my nose and vote for the jerk in November. My commitment to the GOP is secondary to my commitment to restoring the United States of America to a Fiscally sound, Constitutionally limited nation that believes in the rule of law. For too many years now (100?), the Progressives have pretty much had their way with all but destroying the Constitution, increasing the Federal Government to nearly unsustainable levels, not too mention their nearly total destruction of our educational system. Like I've said many times at our meetings, we conservatives have a lot of ground to make up for being asleep at the wheel for the past 60 years, but we are awake now and if we have to keep at it for many years to come. It's our responsibility as Tea Party members to hold our elected representatives accountable. The problem is too many of our elected representatives do not want to be held accountable, and to that I say this: It's too damned bad! They either get with the program of restoring this country or they can go home. It's that simple. The GOP needs to "come back" to the Tea Party principles; the Tea Party does not have "come back" to the GOP...we never left it! In addition to the following romanticized-essay, note issues that have otherwise been unreported [lawyer-suicides], that are uniquely-entertaining [beautiful space-drum, Fred Astaire and Eleanor Powell, bob-hope, and snl shows leonardo-dicaprio-crashing-jonah-hill-monologue] or that convey some levity [what-this-driver-did-to-an-elderly-woman]. Also, here is Ruth Malcomson, “Miss Philadelphia” in 1924, who won the Miss America crown over 82 other competitors; she stayed “Cool with Coolidge.”

MAN RULES AT LAST A GUY HAS TAKEN THE TIME TO WRITE THIS ALL DOWN FINALLY, the guys' side of the story. ( I MUST ADMIT, IT'S PRETTY GOOD.) WE ALWAYS HEAR 'THE RULES' FROM THE FEMALE SIDE NOW HERE ARE THE RULES FROM THE MALE SIDE THESE ARE OUR RULES! PLEASE NOTE. THESE ARE ALL NUMBERED #1 ON PURPOSE! 1. MEN ARE NOT MIND READERS. 1. LEARN TO WORK THE TOILET SEAT. YOU'RE A BIG GIRL. IF IT'S UP, PUT IT DOWN. WE NEED IT UP, YOU NEED IT DOWN. YOU DON'T HEAR US COMPLAINING ABOUT YOU LEAVING IT DOWN. 1. CRYING IS BLACKMAIL. 1. ASK FOR WHAT YOU WANT. LET US BE CLEAR ON THIS ONE: SUBTLE HINTS DO NOT WORK! STRONG HINTS DO NOT WORK! OBVIOUS HINTS DO NOT WORK!

JUST SAY IT! 1. YES AND NO ARE PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE ANSWERS TO ALMOST EVERY QUESTION. 1.. COME TO US WITH A PROBLEM ONLY IF YOU WANT HELP SOLVING IT. THAT'S WHAT WE DO. SYMPATHY IS WHAT YOUR GIRLFRIENDS ARE FOR. 1. ANYTHING WE SAID 6 MONTHS AGO IS INADMISSIBLE IN AN ARGUMENT. IN FACT, ALL COMMENTS BECOME NULL AND VOID AFTER 7 DAYS. 1. IF YOU THINK YOU'RE FAT, YOU PROBABLY ARE. DON'T ASK US. 1. IF SOMETHING WE SAID CAN BE INTERPRETED TWO WAYS AND ONE OF THE WAYS MAKES YOU SAD OR ANGRY, WE MEANT THE OTHER ONE. 1. YOU CAN EITHER ASK US TO DO SOMETHING OR TELL US HOW YOU WANT IT DONE. NOT BOTH. IF YOU ALREADY KNOW BEST HOW TO DO IT, JUST DO IT YOURSELF. 1. WHENEVER POSSIBLE, PLEASE SAY WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO SAY DURING COMMERCIALS. 1. CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS DID NOT NEED DIRECTIONS AND NEITHER DO WE... 1. ALL MEN SEE IN ONLY 16 COLORS, LIKE WINDOWS DEFAULT SETTINGS... PEACH, FOR EXAMPLE, IS A FRUIT, NOT A COLOR. PUMPKIN IS ALSO A FRUIT. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT MAUVE IS. 1. IF WE ASK WHAT IS WRONG AND YOU SAY 'NOTHING,' WE WILL ACT LIKE NOTHING'S WRONG. WE KNOW YOU ARE LYING, BUT IT IS JUST NOT WORTH THE HASSLE. 1. IF YOU ASK A QUESTION YOU DON'T WANT AN ANSWER TO, EXPECT AN ANSWER YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR... 1. WHEN WE HAVE TO GO SOMEWHERE, ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING YOU WEAR IS FINE...REALLY. 1. DON'T ASK US WHAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARED TO DISCUSS SUCH TOPICS AS FOOTBALL OR MOTOR SPORTS. 1. YOU HAVE ENOUGH CLOTHES. 1 . YOU HAVE TOO MANY SHOES. 1. I AM IN SHAPE. ROUND IS A SHAPE! 1. THANK YOU FOR READING THIS. YES, I KNOW, I HAVE TO SLEEP ON THE COUCH TONIGHT. BUT DID YOU KNOW MEN REALLY DON'T MIND THAT? IT'S LIKE CAMPING... PASS THIS TO AS MANY MEN AS YOU CAN - TO GIVE THEM A LAUGH... PASS THIS TO AS MANY WOMEN AS YOU CAN - TO GIVE THEM A BIGGER LAUGH, BECAUSE IT’S TRUE! —

Obama: Marijuana Less Dangerous than Alcohol