Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Mitt Romney’

12 Anti-Trump Pundits and Lawmakers Who Think Bragg’s Case is Terrible


BY: JORDAN BOYD | APRIL 05, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/04/05/12-anti-trump-pundits-and-lawmakers-who-think-braggs-case-is-terrible/

Donald Trump arrives for arraignment in New York
Some of Trump’s most outspoken political enemies are casting doubt on Bragg’s attempts to send the former president to jail.

Author Jordan Boyd profile

JORDAN BOYD

VISIT ON TWITTER@JORDANBOYDTX

MORE ARTICLES

For weeks now, former President Donald Trump and legal experts on the right predicted that the prosecution Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought against Trump was pathetic and partisan. Not long after Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records during his arraignment on Tuesday, some of his most outspoken political enemies also began casting doubt on Bragg’s attempts to send the former president to jail.

Here are the notorious anti-Trumpers who willingly admitted that Bragg’s case against the leader of the Republican Party is a weak attempt to keep him from winning the White House in 2024.

Andrew McCabe

Former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe expressed disappointment on CNN on Tuesday after he realized that Bragg’s justification for elevating Trump’s charges to felonies “simply isn’t there.”

“I think everyone was hoping we would see more,” McCabe said.

He later added that “It’s hard to imagine convincing a jury that they should get there.”

Jonathan Chait

Jonathan Chait, a political columnist at New York Magazine, wrote in the Intelligencer that Bragg’s case against Trump is littered with “legal deficiencies” and kicks off “the criminalization of politics.”

“Trump is being prosecuted charged because he paid hush money to a mistress, something it’s inconcievable he would have been charged over if he were never a candidate for office,” Chait tweeted.

Alan Dershowitz

Attorney Alan Dershowitz called Bragg’s case against Trump a “politicization of the criminal justice system” and “very, very dangerous for America.”

“This is a scandalous misuse of the criminal justice system,” Dershowitz told Sky News Australia. “It will create a terrible precedent in which other prosecutors will go after people of the opposing party.”

Carrie Cordero

CNN legal analyst Carrie Cordero said she expected Bragg’s charges against Trump to be connected to the payments Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen made to Stormy Daniels but said the case itself is “a little underwhelming.”

“There’s not more to it. There are not more violations, tax violations. There’s not an incredible new set of facts that we didn’t know about publicly. It’s really the facts of this case, as they have existed for basically almost seven years,” Cordero said.

Sen. Mitt Romney

Republican Sen. Mitt Romney’s distaste for the former president is no secret but even his strong anti-Trump bias didn’t stop him from calling out the Manhattan D.A. for having “stretched to reach felony criminal charges in order to fit a political agenda.”

John Bolton

Trump-era National Security Adviser John Bolton says Bragg is “wrong on the applicability of the New York statute” that he charged Trump under.

“Speaking as someone who very strongly does not want Donald Trump to get the Republican presidential nomination, I’m extraordinarily distressed by this document. I think this is even weaker than I feared it would be and I think it’s easily subject to being dismissed or a quick acquittal for Trump,” Bolton explained on a CNN panel on Tuesday.

Bolton warned that “there is no basis in the statutory language to say that Trump’s behavior forms either a [campaign] contribution or an expenditure under federal law” which effectively renders Bragg’s case vulnerable to challenge.

“If you can construe the statute to cover this behavior then I think it violates the First Amendment,” Bolton said.

Ian Millhiser 

Ian Millhiser, a senior correspondent at Vox, called Bragg’s case against Trump “painfully anticlimactic” and said it was built on an “uncertain legal theory.”

In the second paragraph of the Vox analysis he penned on Tuesday, Millhiser acknowledges that “there’s a very real risk that this indictment will end in an even bigger anticlimax” because “it is unclear that the felony statute that Trump is accused of violating actually applies to him.”

“Bragg, in other words, has built one of the most controversial and high-profile criminal cases in American history upon the most uncertain of foundations. And that foundation could crumble into dust if the courts reject his legal arguments on a genuinely ambiguous question of law,” Millhiser reaffirms later in the article.

Noah Feldman

Bloomberg opinion columnist and Harvard law professor Noah Feldman wrote in The Washington Post on Tuesday that indicting Trump is a “Risky Bet for New York and the Nation.”

Feldman opens by invoking Democrats’ favorite Trump talking point — “no one is above the law”– but quickly criticized Bragg’s case against the former president as “poorly timed,” “legally weak,” and one that could easily result in a mistrial or acquittal.

“And not only may Trump potentially beat the charges, at trial or on appeal,” Feldman wrote. “He may be able to use those charges to create the impression among his supporters that he is a victim of politically motivated vendetta. In turn, that may make it harder for Georgia or federal prosecutors to bring and sustain much more serious charges against him.”

Mark Joseph Stern

“The Trump Indictment Is Not the Slam-Dunk Case Democrats Wanted,” Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern’s latest headline blared.

According to Stern, Bragg fails to disclose the specific election law that he believes Trump violated even though the “entire prosecution hinges on that question.”

“These charges will be difficult to prove,” Stern warned. “There can be no doubt that the district attorney faces an uphill climb.”

“They tell the story of a complex conspiracy to illicitly alter the course of the 2016 election—potentially, a powerful tale of corruption that persuades both the jury and the public of this prosecution’s necessity,” he continued. “But Bragg’s legal theory is, if not convoluted, a fairly confusing effort to patch together disparate offenses into one alleged crime, carried out over 34 illegal payments. This is not at all the slam-dunk case that so many Democrats wanted.”

Michael Avenatti

Even the lawyer who previously represented on-screen prostitute Stormy Daniels apparently cast doubt on Bragg’s ability to bring a successful case against Trump based on testimony from his former client.

“You can’t build a case on the testimony of Cohen and Daniels,” Michael Avenatti reportedly said.

Jonathan Lemire’s Democrat Sources

MSNBC host Jonathan Lemire told his fellow “Morning Joe” panelists last week that he and other Democrats are concerned Bragg’s case isn’t strong.

“Democrats I’ve spoken to, including some senior members of the White House, who do fear that because this case is weakest, that if it is brought first, that it will be potential — allow Trump to then paint this one as illegitimate, that it’s weak, and suggest that all of the other cases against him are as well. And that is something they’re worried about,” he warned.

Sarah Isgur

Harvard law grad and senior editor of the anti-Trump publication The Dispatch Sarah Isgur admitted on Twitter shortly after Trump’s arraignment that Bragg’s charges don’t make sense.

“He’s tying felony falsification of business records to another state crime that requires unlawful means…so now we need a third crime in order for this ‘felony turtles all the way down’ charge to work. The two state crimes can’t point back to each other!” she wrote.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Advertisement

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Pro-Family Conservatives Must First Be Pro-Men


BY: DELANO SQUIRES | JANUARY 05, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/01/05/pro-family-conservatives-must-first-be-pro-men/

father and son with a hula hoop
Republicans interested in crafting pro-family policy must focus on the well-being of America’s boys and men.

Author Delano Squires profile

DELANO SQUIRES

MORE ARTICLES

Those conservatives who want to shape the nascent pro-family movement emerging on the right must be willing to embrace a controversial — and countercultural — reality: Healthy families require strong, stable, and secure men. That means Republicans interested in crafting pro-family policy must focus on the well-being of America’s boys and men.  

Democrats have spent decades supporting policies that make men and fathers economically and socially obsolete. They’ve promoted the notion that families and societies flourish when women are empowered, even to the detriment of men. For instance, they see the fact that women outnumber men in the college-educated labor force as a win for gender equality.   

It’s not all progress, however, from the perspective of modern feminists. So-called access to abortion, a major plank in the women’s empowerment agenda, was dealt a serious blow when the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision struck down Roe v. Wade and returned the issue of abortion to the states.  

This seismic shift, combined with the economic challenges brought on by Covid-19 shutdowns and parental discontent with public schools, has opened the door for some conservatives to seek to rebrand Republicans as the party of families.   

The initial push for this political pivot came from Republicans in the U.S. Senate. The most recent iteration of Utah Sen. Mitt Romney’s proposed Family Security Act would provide between $250 and $350 a month per child, based on age. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s Provide for Life Act would expand the child tax credit, enable parental leave, expand support for pro-life crisis pregnancy centers, and fund mentoring services for low-income mothers. Conservative social commentators have also made the case that limited government and support for families are compatible policy goals. 

Whatever the merits of these efforts, the success of pro-family policies will depend on more than bipartisan support in Congress. The social and economic outcomes conservatives want to see must start with the understanding that men and women are not generic, interchangeable parts in the machinery of family life.  

Recognizing Roles 

Men have played the role of provider throughout human history, though in recent decades that role has been shared. Still, no culture teaches that it’s a woman’s responsibility to take care of an adult male and the children they have together. This is why women generally seek men who earn more than they do. One analysis of U.S. Census data found that female physicians married men in the same field. Male doctors, however, often married nurses and teachers. 

This is not an argument against women in the workplace. It’s an appeal for conservatives to recognize that disregarding the natural order in the name of “women’s empowerment,” whether through public policy or cultural norms, will make it harder for Americans to form strong, stable families.   

Conservative politicians and pundits need to become comfortable talking about what boys and men need in terms of education, economic opportunity, religion, social norms, and relationships.  

Their political speeches, op-eds, and podcast appearances need a renewed emphasis on vocational education that is aspirational, not framed in terms of a fallback option for young men who are unable — or unwilling — to attend college. Conservatives need to speak with a similar sense of clarity and concern when it comes to men, sex, and family formation.   

Every conservative bill, statute, policy, or regulation that directly affects families should include some version of the following statements:  

  1. Children have a right to the love and support of the man and woman who created them. 
  2. The ideal family structure for every child is to be raised by his or her married biological parents in a stable and loving home.  
  3. Men, not the state, are ultimately responsible for the children they father.  

These self-evident truths should function as the “iron triangle” of social conservatism. Men need something they are willing to both live and die for. The responsibilities that come with a family give them both.   

Critics on the left — as well as some on the right — will undoubtedly accuse conservatives focusing on men of promoting a regressive return to the rigid sex roles of the 1950s. What they fail to realize is that the sexual revolution and 60 years of liberal social policy did not destroy patriarchy — they distorted it by minimizing the importance of men while maximizing the influence male-dominated institutions have in every area of American family life.   

Different Forms of Patriarchy 

“Bureaucratic patriarchy” was introduced through the war on poverty’s expansion of the welfare state and policy incentives that provided aid and basic necessities for unmarried mothers. It has grown because of the symbiotic relationship between elected officials seeking votes, social service administrators overseeing the poverty economy, and single mothers who need financial support.   

Conservatives have a hard time criticizing “corporate patriarchy,” by contrast, because it promotes financial independence for women and exploits conservative deference to the private sector. A recent video from the pro-life organization Live Action satirizes an unfortunate reality brought about by the right’s allegiance to corporations: Many businesses would rather fund abortions than paid maternity leave for their female employees. Perhaps business executives are simply taking cues from Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who said, “eliminating the right of women to make decisions about when and whether to have children would have very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades.”  

The advent of “trans patriarchy” further complicates the pro-life, pro-family movement because men who believe they are women are committed to erasing biological sex altogether. In addition to attacking the foundation of human existence itself, this deformed version of patriarchy also seeks to usurp the family’s role as the primary shaper of children’s values.   

Many conservatives fail to see how the daycare-to-demisexual pipeline was built over time by politicians increasing funding for childcare and schools, corporations offering generous benefits in exchange for employee loyalty, and gender ideologues who want access to shape the next generation of children.   

The actors involved in all three deformed patriarchies are cruel taskmasters because they take a utilitarian view of women and children. A man who accepts his God-given responsibilities has a completely different orientation toward his family. His relationship with his wife is a covenant, not a contract. His children are the fruit of that union and the linchpin to multi-generational prosperity. They’re not mere “consequences” of sex and burdens to be overcome for the sake of economic productivity.   

In a sense, some form of patriarchy is inevitable. The question conservative policymakers need to answer is which form they believe produces the best outcomes for men, women, and children. This is why clear thinking about families must be preceded by honest reflection on the different natures of men and women and how they can be harnessed to fortify American households. That is why now is the perfect time for conservatives to lean into the connection between strong men and stable families.  

Delano Squires is a research fellow in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family at The Heritage Foundation. Follow him on Twitter @DelanoSquires.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Reminiscing

A.F. BRANCO | on February 26, 2022 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-reminiscing/

Now that Biden has all but destroyed the country it’s nice to look back on better days with Trump as President.

Trump Gave Us better Days
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Back to the Future

A.F. BRANCO | on February 28, 2022 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-back-to-the-future/

Obama ridiculed Romney’s Russia warning in 2012 during their presidential debate, and now?

Romney 80s Foreign policy
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2022.

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Potential Swing Vote Mitt Romney Announces Support for Vote on SCOTUS Nominee


Reported By Erin Coates | Published September 22, 2020 at 9:05am

Sen. Mitt Romney announced Tuesday that he would support a floor vote on President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, which might give Senate Republicans the votes they need to confirm a new Supreme Court justice before the November election.

“I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the president’s nominee,” the Utah Republican said in a statement.

“If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications.”

Romney added that his decision was not based on a “subjective test of ‘fairness,’” but on the “immutable fairness of following the law.”

READ THE REST OF THE REPORT AT: https://www.westernjournal.com/potential-swing-vote-mitt-romney-announces-support-vote-scotus-nominee/

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

John Bolton Admits Last-Minute Impeachment Leak Was A Publicity Stunt


Posted By

URL of the original posting site: https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/20/john-bolton-admits-last-minute-impeachment-leak-was-a-publicity-stunt/

John Bolton Admits Last-Minute Impeachment Leak Was A Publicity Stunt

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton admitted Wednesday that his testimony in President Donald Trump’s recent impeachment proceedings involving Ukraine would have had no impact on the trial’s outcome even after sections of his upcoming book leaked attempting to convict the president in its final days.

“People can argue about what I should have said and what I should have done,” Bolton said at Vanderbilt University Wednesday night during a forum with his predecessor Susan Rice, according to ABC News. “I will bet you a dollar right here and now my testimony would have made no difference to the ultimate outcome.”

“I sleep at night because I have followed my conscience,” Bolton added.

Rice challenged Bolton’s decision to remain silent throughout the process despite not ever being subpoenaed by the House or Senate in the proceedings.

“It’s inconceivable to me that if I had firsthand knowledge of a gross abuse of presidential power, that I would withhold my testimony,” Rice said. “I would feel like I was shamefully violating my oath that I took to support and defend the Constitution.”

Bolton argued that the House botched the process and condemned House Democrats for having committed “impeachment malpractice.”

“The process drove Republicans who might have voted for impeachment away from the president because it was so partisan,” Bolton claimed.

Bolton’s new book, “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,” is slated to be released next month is expected to reveal what Bolton might have said had he been forced to testify before lawmakers in the impeachment proceedings. Republicans in the Senate defeated Democrats’ efforts to bring Bolton before the upper chamber before the final vote with only Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine voting in favor of the measure.

In the final days of the trial however, sections of Bolton’s upcoming book were leaked to the New York Times, featuring Bolton accusing Trump of tying the nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine with politically motivated investigations as Democrats alleged. The leak happened to come on the same day the book became available for online pre-order revealing the move as nothing more than a publicity stunt.

On Monday, Bolton accused the White House of trying to suppress details in the book in his first public remarks since the president’s exoneration at Duke University.

Tristan Justice is a staff writer at The Federalist focusing on the 2020 presidential campaigns. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.
Photo Gage Skidmore / Flickr

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Bum Steer

A.F. Branco | on
Mitt Romney let his hate, envy, and resentment for Trump stop him from doing the right thing on his Impeachment vote.
Mitt Romney For ImpeachmentPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Berned-Out

A.F. Branco | on
Today’s Democrats are just as much Communist as Bernie Sanders, they just prefer to hide it from voters.
Democrats Are CommunistPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great El Rushbo, and has had his toons tweeted by President Trump.

take our poll – story continues below
  • Liberals want the Electoral College Abolished. Do You?*
    • Yes! Let’s be the United States of California
    • Absolutely Not!
    • How is this even a question?

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Thanksgivings Misgivings

A.F. Branco | on
Mitt Romney and Elizabeth Warren are not fooling anyone about who they really are. Misgivings this Thanksgivings.
Thanksgiving 2019 Indians and PilgrimsPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.
A.F. Branco 13-Month 2020 Calendar – ORDER TODAY

More A.F. Branco Cartoons at The Daily Torch.

A.F. Branco Coffee Table Book “Make America Laugh again”

take our poll – story continues below

  • Will Democrats win the house and senate in 2020?

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great El Rushbo, and has had his toons tweeted by President Trump.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Going Green

A.F. Branco | on
Mitt Romney, aka Pierre Delecto, is a never Trumper RINO who is also showing signs of intense envy toward President Trump.
Envious RINO RomneyPolitical cartoon A.F. Branco ©2019.
More A.F. Branco Cartoons at The Daily Torch.

A.F. Branco Coffee Table Book “Make America Laugh again”

Branco’s Faux Children’s Book “APOCALI” ORDER  HERE

take our poll – story continues below

  • Will Hillary Clinton enter the 2020 race for president?

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great El Rushbo, and has had his toons tweeted by President Trump

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – RINOs R Us

A.F. Branco | on

Outgoing Senator Flake is relieved he’s found his replacement in the Senator from Utah Mitt Romney. Both fill the RINOs R Us bill nicely by bashing the Trump agenda.

Romney Flakes Out Against TrumpPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.
A.F.Branco’s New Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here

take our poll – story continues below

  • Will you vote for President Trump in 2020 if he can’t get the wall built?

A.F.Branco’s New Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – American Standoff

A.F. Branco | on

Trump wants a border for national security, Pelosi and Schumer only want to obstruct Trump. Where’s the middle ground.
National Security Line in The Sand Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.

See more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Rush Limbaugh Says 1 Person Is Taking Over The GOP


Reported By Jason Hopkins | on October 10, 2017 at 7:55am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/rush-limbaugh-says-1-person-is-taking-over-the-gop/?

Advertisement – story continues below

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh made a bold statement on his program about Steve Bannon and the current state of the Republican Part y.

Limbaugh believes Bannon, the former White House chief strategist, is taking over the roles and responsibilities meant for GOP leadership by enforcing conservatism onto Republican candidates up for re-election.

“I think what Bannon is doing is slowly but surely taking over the role of the Republican Party,” Limbaugh said Wednesday. “The Republican Party is obviously not with Trump on balance — you have some in the House who are — but the Republican Party on balance is not with Trump.”

Steve Bannon played a major role in then-candidate Donald Trump’s presidential victory upset last year and led the formulation of White House policy in the months that followed. He was Trump’s campaign chairman during the 2016 election and later served as a White House chief strategist — leading the nationalist wing of the administration.

After abruptly leaving the administration in mid-August, Bannon returned to his prior position as executive chairman of Breitbart News. Since leaving the White House, he made it clear he would use his position as a media executive to support insurgent conservative candidates running primaries against establishment GOP lawmakers.

Advertisement – story continues below

Bannon already appears good for his word.

In the special election in Alabama to fill the Senate seat once held by now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Bannon went against the Trump administration with his endorsement of Roy Moore. Bannon supported the successful candidacy of Moore, a controversial former judge, in a move that was at odds with Trump, who campaigned vehemently for Moore’s opponent, Sen. Luther Strange. By election day, it wasn’t even close. Moore bested Strange in the GOP primary by almost double digits. Moore now heads into the Alabama general election, where he will likely win in a state that leans red.

The primary results demonstrated the power of Bannon’s support.

The leader of Breitbart is not stopping with the Alabama special election. Bannon has recently announced he is expanding his GOP targets, adding Republican Sens. Deb Fischer of Nebraska, John Barrasso of Wyoming and Orrin Hatch of Utah to his hit list.

> In Wyoming, Bannon is pushing Erik Prince, the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and founder of major security contractor Blackwater, to challenge Barrasso, CNN reported. 

> In Utah, Hatch may very well retire on his own. If he does, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is reportedly eyeing a run in the Mormon-majority state. If that happens, Bannon is ready to run a candidate against him.

According to a source close to Bannon, this is just a “partial” list of elections he is looking to influence.

Bannon is already working to knock off Republican Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake and his beleaguered campaign for re-election. Nevada Sen. Dean Heller and Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker are also on Bannon’s radar.

“Some people make an argument that there really isn’t a Republican Party left. I mean, there are people who call themselves that and they go out and raise money and they raise a lot. But whereas the party used to be known for one, two, or three very serious things, they’re not anymore,” Limbaugh added on his radio show.

The conservative talk radio host believes Bannon and others are trying to keep the identity of the Republican Party alive by enforcing such standards onto them by way of primary challenges.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

QUESTION: Would ‘Loyal Giuliani’ Make A BETTER Sec of State Than ‘Traitor Romney?’


waving flagPublished on November 22, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/11/question-loyal-giuliani-make-better-sec-state-traitor-romney/

It’s like Fantasy football for political junkies. The latest matchup is for the Secretary of State position. And people are making their picks.

Newt Gingrich prefers Rudy Giuliani to Mitt Romney as a potential secretary of state, the former House Speaker said on Monday. Gingrich, emerging from a meeting with the president-elect at Trump Tower, told reporters he would support whoever Trump picked, but declared: “I think there are huge advantages to Rudy Giuliani.”

“Frankly, I think that if you want someone who is going to go out and be a very tough negotiator for America and represent American interest in the way that Trump campaigned, I think that probably Rudy is a better pick and has the right temperament,” he elaborated, according to a pool report of his remarks.

Gingrich suggested that it isn’t clear Romney was “willing to be [Trump’s] secretary of state,” and asked whether Romney “would work to make Trump Romney’s version of the presidency.”no-more-rinos

“I think they’ve got to talk it through,” he added. Romney is under “active consideration” to be Trump’s top diplomat, according to comments made by Vice President-elect Mike Pence over the weekend…

…As for Giuliani, Gingrich said, “We’re going to need somebody who is a fighter,” because “the world is not going to change just because we show up and say ‘please.’ If that was going to work, Secretary Kerry would be successful.”
Read more: Politico

What do you think?

Reward those who have stayed loyal? Or leave aside the infighting and pick someone whatever he said in the Primaries? (You might remember some of the trash-talk Romney made while being one of the leading #NeverTrumpers. It was ugly.)

On this question, what should take the priority? Building party unity so we can all be on the same page in crushing the Democrat’s ‘transformation’ of America? Or are we making an example of someone who made an ass of himself and the party in the Primaries?

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagI (800) Sore Loser

Romney is trying his best trip up the 2016 GOP front runner, but Trump has something to say about that.

Romney is trying his best trip up the 2016 GOP front runner, but Trump has something to say about that. Political cartoon by A.F.Branco ©2016

More A.F.Branco Cartoons at Net Right Daily.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Help destroy Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagGOP Family Vacation

Trump vs Romney and the establishment. Trump appears to be winning.

Trump vs Romney / Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2015.

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

no more rinos Die true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Commentary: GOP v. Trump: It’s like they’re stupid or something


Commentary By J.E. Dyer March 3, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://libertyunyielding.com/2016/03/03/gop-v-trump-its-like-theyre-stupid-or-something

GOP v. Trump: It’s like they’re stupid or something (Image via thegeekwhisperer.com)

Romney?  Really?

Sure enough, a tone-deaf GOP establishment (sorry to be banal and use that expression, but it’s accurate enough) deployed Mitt Romney to lob its big volley at Donald Trump after his strong performance on Super Tuesday.  The speech was predictable: a grave-sounding indictment of Trump, delivered with Romney’s characteristically earnest but cheerful demeanor.

Whom did the GOP establishment think it was appealing to with the Romney speech?  That’s a serious question.  Who was the target audience?

If it was aimed at the people who support Trump today, Romney is not the guy to deliver the message.  Those people think Romney and candidates like him have been the Republican Party’s chief problem for the last 30 years.  They think Romney’s the reason we got four more years of Obama in 2012.

If the speech was aimed at convincing the undecided, it was the dumbest speech ever made for that purpose.  It was all about attacking Trump – and on a pretty personal level.  That’s not how you persuade the undecided.

Attacking personalities palls on everyone rather quickly.  It’s a drive-by tactic.  It looks really disproportionate to stage a big, solemn oratorical event just to dump on Trump.

That point leads to the larger one: why have this speech at all?  What does the GOP brand buy itself by attacking Trump, in this stately, strained manner?

If the answer is “more cred with the mainstream punditry and the Washington-centric political class,” well, God help the GOP.  It’s too stupid to live.

Moving on.  Between 30% and 50% of GOP voters, depending on state, have gone for one of Ted  (TX – R) or Marco Rubio (FL – R), but it’s hard to see how the Romney speech could have been aimed at them.  Those voters have (a) decided, and (b) decided not to vote for Trump in the primaries.  Is there something else they’re supposed to do after this speech?

Maybe the speech was intended as the opening salvo in an asymmetrical campaign by the GOP establishment to “broker” the convention in Cleveland.  Like, a signal flare that they’re going to fight this Trump dude, or something along those lines.  If so, it’s a poorly crafted demonstration.  Not only doesn’t it scare anybody, it just makes the Trump divisions more determined.

Even more important, it exposes the GOP establishment further.  It shows the establishment’s hand, and generates opposition to its anti-consensual intentions unnecessarily.  It’s quite likely that every trial balloon about a brokered convention drives more voters to Trump, out of frustration with the GOP leadership’s highhandedness.

That’s the problem with the establishment’s approach: all it does by coming back again and again at Trump is make him stronger.  It’s like the GOP’s top echelon is sending one contender after another at the mythical Antaeus, and every time they throw him to earth, he gains strength.

Of course, if the GOP establishment wants everybody talking about Trump, listening to Trump, listening to other people talk about Trump, focusing on Trump, and waiting to see what Trump will do or say next, then it is doing everything right.

Sending forth Marco Rubio to turn his campaign into an anti-Trump stand-up routine sure worked out, didn’t it?  Maybe it got him a big second-place finish in Virginia.  (Maybe.  Virginia was going to have a high incidence of Rubio voters anyway, because it’s a purple state now.)

But the main thing average, lower-information voters remember about Rubio at this point is a male-appendage joke targeting Trump, and something snarky he said about Trump selling watches.  If you asked those voters what Rubio would do about the bad economy, gun rights, or national security, they couldn’t tell you.

On the other hand, they can tell you Trump wants to build a wall at the southern border.  And now, thanks to the MSM, they can tell you that Trump has disavowed the KKK quite thoroughly – probably more times in the last week than 90% of career politicians in their political lives, and he’s on video doing it.  By the peculiar standard of “disavowing the KKK on national TV,” who out there looks better than Donald Trump?

No matter what they throw at him, it turns into grist for his mill.  It’s like watching the Coyote tilt fruitlessly at the Roadrunner, and end up over and over being punched through the edge of a cliff by a falling anvil.

It’s more melancholy than funny to watch, although it has its moments. Perhaps the most poignant moment in recent politics was Romney’s invocation today of the Reagan “Time for Choosing” speech. (Transcription from CNN; link above.)

“I believe with all my heart and soul that we face another time for choosing, one that will have profound consequences for the Republican Party and more importantly, for the country,” Romney said in Utah at the Hinckley Institute of Politics Forum.

The Reagan speech resounds in conservative hearts as a watershed in their, and their country’s, political fortunes, and for good reason.  But the truth is, there’s no one who sees Romney and the GOP establishment as the trustees of that legacy.  And that would be because they merely deploy Reagan’s words and tone – in this case, for a cheap and ineffectual purpose.

What did Romney pull the Reagan big gun for?  Not to inspire his listeners.  To attack Trump.  Here’s the rest of his passage:

“His domestic policies would lead to recession. His foreign policies would make America and the world less safe. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president. And his personal qualities would mean that America would cease to be a shining city on a hill.”

So, by portentous analogy, Donald Trump is a threat to America on a par with Soviet international Communism.  We’re staring into the abyss of a thousand years of darkness, because of Donald Trump.  Or something.

The implication here is really over the top, as Jeff Dunetz correctly pointed out (on a related theme) yesterday.  And that’s an important exit point.  When it comes to being over the top, the GOP establishment is up against the master.  It’s out of its league.  It can’t win on this battlefield.

I doubt it’s going to learn much between now and Cleveland.  Sarah Palin, whatever her faults, understands much better what’s going on in the Republican electorate.  And there’s a reason for that.  It’s because she sees things from the perspective of the ordinary, middle-class people who are bearing the entire burden of the 20th century’s old consensus: bloated, intrusive government, a government that despises the people and sucks them dry.

Start with respecting that, GOP leaders.  No one who doesn’t have a heart, first, for the people and their liberty is going to prosper in trying to wrest the GOP nomination from Trump.  You can take that to the bank, with my signature on it.

J.E. DyerJ.E. Dyer

J.E. Dyer is a retired Naval Intelligence officer who lives in Southern California, blogging as The Optimistic Conservative for domestic tranquility and world peace. Her articles have appeared at Hot Air, Commentary’s Contentions, Patheos, The Daily Caller, The Jewish Press, and The Weekly Standard.

 

 

true battle Die In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Category:

Opinion, Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagA Harry Fight

April 22, 2015
URL of the Original Posting Site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/04/a-harry-fight/
Reid Ring 600 LI
Liberalism a mental disorder 2 Party of Deciet and lies DO NOT JACKASS Picture6 OARLogo

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Romney attacks Obama for ‘faulty judgement’ and accuses the president of naivety over Russia’s annexation of Crimea


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587459/Romney-attacks-Obama-faulty-judgement-accuses-president-naivety-Russias-annexation-Crimea.html#ixzz2x0uVHCvU

  • Failed 2012 Republican presidential nominee Romney said Obama could have done more to try and deter Russia’s annexation of Crimea
  • He did acknowledge that such steps may not have been enough though to hold back Russia President Vladimir Putin
  • During the 2012 campaign, Romney took criticism from Obama for saying Russia was America’s ‘number one geopolitical foe,’ rather than al-Qaida

By Associated Press Reporter

PUBLISHED: 14:44 EST, 23 March 2014 | UPDATED: 05:29 EST, 24 March 2014

Mitt Romney said on Sunday that President Barack Obama is naive when it comes to Russia, has shown ‘faulty judgment’ about Moscow’s intentions and could have done more to try to deter its annexation of Crimea.

The 2012 Republican presidential nominee said Obama didn’t have the foresight to anticipate Russia’s moves and should have been working earlier with allies to make clear the penalties that Russia would face if it moved into Ukraine.

Community Organizer Two

Romney did acknowledge that such steps may not have been enough though to hold back Russia President Vladimir Putin.

Mitt Romney said President Barack Obama is naive when it comes to Russia and has shown 'faulty judgment'

Mitt Romney said President Barack Obama is naive when it comes to Russia and has shown ‘faulty judgment’

 ‘Had we communicated those things, there’s always the potential that we could have kept them from invading a country and annexing it into their own,’ Romney said on CBS’ Face the Nation.

During the 2012 campaign, Romney took criticism from Obama for saying Russia was America’s ‘number one geopolitical foe,’ rather than al-Qaida. Now Romney seems to be claiming the right to say, essentially, ‘I told you so.’

‘There’s no question but that the president’s naivety with regards to Russia, and his faulty judgment about Russia’s intentions and objectives, has led to a number of foreign policy challenges that we face,’ Romney said.

Community Organizer Two

‘And unfortunately, not having anticipated Russia’s intentions, the president wasn’t able to shape the kinds of events that may have been able to prevent the kinds of circumstances that you’re seeing in the Ukraine, as well as the things that you’re seeing in Syria.’

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who just returned from Ukraine, said it was Romney who was naiveSen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who just returned from Ukraine, said it was Romney who was naive

He said the U.S. should now welcome nations that seek entry into NATO, should forgo cuts to the U.S. military budget and reconsider putting a missile defense system into the Czech Republic and Poland, as once planned.

During the 2012 campaign, Romney had tried to portray the Democratic incumbent as soft on Russia. Writing in Foreign Policy magazine, he said that ‘for three years, the sum total of President Obama’s policy toward Russia has been: “We give, Russia gets.”’

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who just returned from Ukraine, said it was Romney who was naive.

Durbin, referring to Putin, a former officer in the Soviet KGB, said Putin is ‘a bully and we’ve got to call him for what he is. But this notion that some sanction is going to stop a former colonel in the KGB from his ambitions of a Russian empire is naive.

Romney also used the appearance to criticize Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama’s first secretary of state who now is considering a presidential run in 2016.

Failed 2012 Republican presidential nominee Romney said Obama didn't have the foresight to anticipate Russia's moves and should have been working earlier with allies to make clear the penalties that Russia would face if it moved into Ukraine

Failed 2012 Republican presidential nominee Romney said Obama didn’t have the foresight to anticipate Russia’s moves and should have been working earlier with allies to make clear the penalties that Russia would face if it moved into Ukraine

Romney said he couldn’t think of a major country that had greater respect and admiration for the U.S. than it did ‘after five years of the Obama administration and Secretary Clinton.’

‘You look over the past five years and say, “what’s happened?” Good things have not been bursting out all over,’ he said.

Durbin, the second-ranking Senate Democrat, said on CBS that Romney suffered from ‘political amnesia.’

‘Osama bin Laden is gone. The war in Iraq is over. Afghanistan is coming to a close. And this president has worked with many of these nations successfully to put pressure on Iran, the sanctions, bringing them to the negotiating table,’ Durbin said.

He said Romney has ‘forgotten those facts.’

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Hate is the Force that Gives the Left Meaning


http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/02/hate-force-gives-left-meaning/#xAVEDjOlf5vMMJaD.99

The American left has never had it this good. It has never had two terms of an unabashed and uncompromising leftist in the White House dedicated to its agenda functioning as a dictator without the military uniform, making and unmaking laws at a whim, siccing the IRS and Federal prosecutors on political enemies and transforming the country at a breathtaking pace.
021014_1451_HateistheFo1.jpgObama is what generations of the left have dreamed of and worked toward. This is the flicker of hope they kept alive after JFK’s assassination, the Nixon years, Carter’s collapse and the long stretch of Reaganomics. This is what Bill Clinton robbed them of prematurely by gauging his actions against the polls instead of blasting full steam ahead regardless of what the public wanted.

The left finally has its Un-American tyranny. So why is it so angry?

Watch MSNBC or browse any left-wing site and you see a level of anger that would make you think that Al Gore had just conceded or Nixon had just won reelection. There’s more anger in the privileged circles of the left than in the political rearguard of the Tea Party.

That anger trickles from the top down. Obama’s interview with Bill O’Reilly was yet another opportunity for the most powerful man in the country to blame a vast right wing conspiracy. A day doesn’t pass without another email from Obama, his wife, Sandra Fluke or Joe Biden warning that without another five or ten dollar contribution, the “right” will take over America.

The left has unchallenged control over the government, academia and the entertainment industry and yet it talks as if the country is 5 seconds away from Sarah Palin marching into Washington D.C. at the head of an army of Duck Dynasty fans to outlaw abortion.

The apocalyptic political paranoia and the uncontrolled outbursts of rage haven’t changed much since 2003. Ten years later, the ideologues in power still act as if George W. Bush is serving out his fourth term. Every day on MSNBC, a stew of conspiracy theories about oil companies, Israel, the Koch Brothers, Wal-Mart and Karl Rove leaves a slimy trail across the television screen.

On the internet, manufactured outrage has become the only progressive stock in trade. Did Jerry Seinfeld say that he values humor over racial quotas? He’s a racist. Did an ESPN magazine out a compulsive liar who also happened to be pretending to be a woman? Lock him up. Did Mike Huckabee say something that could be misinterpreted with enough ellipses and out of context “Twitterized” quotes? Before you know it, he’s a sexist pig.
Pageviews are the obvious profit motive behind all this and yet it says something deeply disturbing about a progressive readership that eats up hate and doesn’t react to anything positive. The rash of fake hate crimes feeds into that same perverse need for an enemy to hate and fight. The left used to pretend that it wanted to do something positive. But now that it has the power, it can’t stop searching for someone to hate instead.
The left is more comfortable being angry than being anything else; it finds it easier to rally the troops against something than for something so that even its triumphs only lead to more anger. The MSNBC tweet about an interracial Cheerios commercial was revealing of a deeper problem within the left. It was assumed that the MSNBC audience wouldn’t care about an interracial ad unless it could somehow pretend to “spite” the right by watching it.

Obama’s awkward stumble from cause to cause, letting the old Bush policies run on Autoplay unless a crusade kicks in, as it eventually did on gay marriage and illegal immigration, is indicative of the problem with the left’s governing style. As with an interracial Cheerios commercial, it cares less about gay marriage or legalizing illegal aliens than it does about stirring up conflict.
021014_1451_HateistheFo2.jpgLike an overgrown teenager for whom music or clothes aren’t about enjoying life or expressing an identity, but about upsetting and offending his or her parents, the left needs the negative validation of the right to be secure in its bad choices. Without that negative feedback to affirm its rebellion, its pet causes no longer seem all that compelling or meaningful.

That is another reason why the left began neglecting some of its bread and butter issues after Obama won. Aside from the need to protect its own man, it wasn’t really all that interested in closing Gitmo, gay marriage or opposing the War in Iraq. The things it wants to do are never as important to it as its obsessive need to feel that it is fighting against the right.

For all the Obama Worship, the left is more united by hatred for Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz or any other conservative villain of the month than by its support for its own leaders. It derives its identity more from the things that it is against, the middle class, the country, the businessman, the white male, than from the things that it is for. The left’s sense of self is strongest when it is attacking, not when it is inspiring, when it is destroying, not when it is building.

Deprived of an external enemy, its ideologues carve out narrow orthodoxies and denounce each other for violating them. When the right and the center have been purged, the purges of the left begin and don’t end until there is nothing left except one tyrant-guru and his terrified minions. Or until some outside force throws a pot of cold water on the quarreling and shrieking acolytes brawling over minor points of doctrine.

The small scale bloodsport documented in the outward reaches of feminism by The Nation in its article “Feminism’s Toxic Twitter Wars” as transgender rights activists denounce Eve Ensler for excluding them by using the word “Vagina” and black feminists denounce white feminists for ignoring their concerns. This is what the left begins doing when it has free time on its hands. It doesn’t stop fighting. Instead its wars become pettier power struggles over points of doctrine.

When all enemies to the right have been eliminated, the left doesn’t find peace. Its ideology is a weapon, its gurus are egomaniacs and its followers joined to fight. When it wins in an arena, whether it’s academia or entertainment, the winners begins warring against each other proving that even in an ideological vacuum, its ideology remains a destructive force whose followers would rather denounce and destroy, than educate and enlighten.

As a victorious parasite writes its own obituary, a successful left is a threat to its own existence and the only thing saving the left from the violent disintegration into its own insanity is the right.

Hating the right is the only thing that keeps the left together. When it doesn’t have Nixon to kick around anymore, it dissolves into a wet puddle of goo. If it didn’t have Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney and every other figure who took his turn starring in their grim theater of the Two Minutes Hate, it would revert back to the petty infighting of a thousand minor eccentric causes.

021014_1451_HateistheFo3.jpgThe left needs to believe in a vast right-wing conspiracy. It needs the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, Evangelical Christians, AIPAC, oil companies, defense contractors and every other element of its conspiracy theories to keep its gurus and followers focused on the “real” threat instead of purging each other for tone policing, insufficient privilege checking and any other outrage of the week.

Like the Salafists shooting and shelling each other in Syria, the ranks of the left are filled with dogmatic and intolerant fanatics whose only goal in life is the absolute victory of their point of view. Their mutual fanaticism and aggrieved sense of victimhood gives them more in common with each other and that very commonality is the source of their mutual hatred. Only they can understand each other well enough to truly want to kill each other as no outsider possibly can.

Hate is the force that gives the left meaning. It isn’t hope that animates its leaders and thinkers, but the darker side of human nature that calls on them to destroy and to kill. That dark side is why the left’s victories end in tragedies, why the red flags are painted with blood and when its followers have run out of enemies to kill, they turn on each other and destroy their own movements with firing squads, gulags and guillotines.

The left finds its identity not in its utopian visions, but in the things and people it wishes to destroy. Only by knowing what they hate, do its followers know who they are.

About Daniel Greenfield

My name is Daniel Greenfield. I am a blogger and columnist born in Israel and living in New York City. I am a  Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a contributing editor at Family Security Matters. My original biweekly column appears at Front Page Magazine and my blog articles regularly appear at Family Security Matters, the Jewish Press, Times of Israel, Act for America and Right Side News, as well as daily at the Canada Free Press and a number of other outlets. I have a column titled Western Front at Israel National News and my op eds have also appeared in the New York Sun, the Jewish Press and at FOX Nation.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/02/hate-force-gives-left-meaning/#xAVEDjOlf5vMMJaD.99

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

ERIC HOLDER…SUPREME COURT JUSTICE IN 2013?


If you are not wide-awake now, you will be when you have finished reading this!!!!! Columnist Andrew McCarthy gives us what probably is the most important question about the upcoming presidential election: appointments to the Supreme Court.

I will enthusiastically support Mitt Romney’s candidacy. For my friends who have hesitation on that score, I’d just ask you to keep these things in mind…

  1. 1.   Justice Scalia is 78.
  2. 2.   Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year
  3. 3.   Justice Breyer will be 76 in August
  4. 4.   Justice Ginsburg is 81. She also has pancreatic cancer
  5. 5.   Justice Stephens has already said he would retire and is just waiting for Obama to be re-elected.

The next president could appoint as many as 5 new Justices over the next 4 years, or over the next 8 years if a new President gets a second term. This election is about much MORE than the ObamaCare Tax. Whomever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least one new member of the Supreme Court, in addition to hundreds of other life tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come.” If you do not think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, THINK AGAIN! FOR ANYONE WHO IS THINKING OF NOT VOTING BECAUSE YOUR FAVORITE DIDN’T GET THE NOMINATION, OR WRITING IN A CANDIDATE WHO CAN’T WIN, PLEASE REALIZE THIS BECAUSE IT JUST MIGHT HAPPEN IF BARACK OBAMA, gets re-elected :

ERIC HOLDER, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE? After you have stopped gasping because of this horror, please share this with every rational person you know!

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

THANKS A LOT SANDY


The aftermath of Sandy defies description.

  • Three feet of Snow in West Virginia;
  • Several inches of sand covering everything several miles inland in New Jersey;
  • The front of a building in New York City completely blown off;
  • A wind-blown fire wiping out 80 homes;
  • Millions of people without power, safe drinking water and uncertain sewers;
  • Transportation interrupted, especially flights.

I have prayed, and I hope you have been too, for the victims of this historic storm. Such devastation boggles the mind and the cost of recovery will be staggering, especially because we’re broke as a nation.

However, Americans have always rallied behind our fellow citizens who are suffering and in need. We will respond again. Already all the forces of good and caring are at work meeting needs and bring comfort. No, I am not including the government.

I have no doubt that needs will be met, rebuilding will happen and “normal” will one day be reestablished. However, I am extremely concerned about a disaster no one is talking about, and “normal” may never be realized again has a result of that disaster. I am referring to the Presidential Election coming up next Tuesday. The storm has opened wider that opportunity for Leftist voting shenanigans.

With all the arguments over Voter Registration, Voter I.D. and Voter Fraud, this natural disaster has provided and added opportunity to make the corrupt more powerful. Consider the national debate;

  • The Left opposes Voter I.D. because they curry the favor of people who are here illegally. I.D.s exposes the fraud.
  • In Florida, over 50,000 people that are on the voting registration rolls are deceased. How many do you think will rise from the dead and vote?
  • The introduction of early voting has given the Left more time to encourage fraud by multiple votes from some people.
  • The Left has already manipulated the Military Vote into nonexistence because they know the Military votes predominately Republican.
  • California has already announced they will not be counting the mailed in ballots, as they did in 2008, because they claim it won’t make a difference in the outcome.
  • The U.N. has been invited again to “observe” our voting because the U.N. has been told that Republicans repress the vote in certain areas prohibiting poor and elderly people from voting.
  • With the power off, some areas will have to go to paper ballots opening the doors for screams of voting irregularity should the Left loose. Yes, it has been reported that the lawsuits have already been drawn up and ready for filing should Mitt Romney win. You’ve also heard how the Left has already arranged riots in strategic areas should Mitt Romney win. That will open the door for Marshall Law to be established, and the election deemed null and void.
  • Like in California, the Registrar of Voters has admitted that many citizens are registered in multiple cities and can’t do anything about that person from voting in each location.
  • There is no way to determine the number of illegal votes in the States that have not passed Voter I.D. laws.
  • Like I said, opened doors more even more voting shenanigans, especially should the election be extended because of Sandy’s destruction.

For conservatives in California elections are becoming a farce. For over 50 years the Left files lawsuits if measures don’t go their way. The courts are so corrupt and Left, that most of the time the Left wins. More and more I hear people say, “Why vote when the Democrats go to court and get the election overturned.” And here the Left is the one always screaming about voter repression. California leads the nation in voter repression because the Left always wins in court when we do not vote their way.

For my house and me, we will vote. We refuse to give up. The drums of revolutionary war are getting louder every day. Will we see a revolution in our day? I’m not sure anymore. I am not armed, and that worries me.

Hopefully God is hearing our prayers asking Him to forgive our sins and heal our land. However, our nation has reached levels of inequity that dwarfs Biblical Israel. They were rightly judged for their turn from God. America deserves the same. Is there a remnant of believers big enough for God to withhold His hand? I don’t know. I am praying He heals instead of punishes. What are you praying for?

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Attack, Attack, Atack + Small Ball = Romney Win


At times tonight I wondered if President Obama was trying to put a hoax on Governor Romney by the was he starred at him. My first thought ended up to last through the debate that President Obama, in an effort to be tougher as his spokes people said he would be, actually came out phoney, pathetic and small minded. Here are some other observations;

  • It dawned on me when President Obama continuously repeating how he would get a consensus of “his” world partners and then act. This fits with his Collectivism/Socialism ideology. He believes that the World problems can be solved by “committee”. Any casual look at Congress will tell you that philosophy is not correct. Committees can come up with some suggested solutions, but it takes a LEADER to actually solve the problem.
  • I agree with Charles Krauthammer that Governor Romney was correct in not “pounding” President Obama about Benghazi, Lydia. In fact, I believe he won the entire debate when he pointed out that the greatest threat to our National Security is our debt. The President really had no answer for that.
  • The “small ball”, smug, demeaning attack on Mitt Romney in response to Mitt Romney giving the stats about the Navy, was as UN-Presidential as you can get. His, “the military doesn’t use horses or bayonets anymore” revealed is total disdain for the Governor. “By the way Mr. President, as a Marine, we still use bayonets.”
  • I was angered with how the Governor was constantly interrupted by both the President and the moderator Bob  Schieffer. In recent months I have heard a multitude of other people say the same thing. That is another reason the President lost tonight.
  • There was nothing new with President Obama. All his words and phrases are from his stump speeches. Nothing new, no matter how convincing he said them. Several times he really didn’t answer the question. He went on and on about his “talking points”.
  • Mitt Romney was articulate, to the point, and relaxed. He did not fall into any trap intended to get him into an argument or confrontation. The two times he refused to allow Bob  Schieffer to shut him up was great and maintained his composure.

For the most part I agree with other observers that this debate was boring. I’m glade they are over.

 

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Help Me Understand


I am having a hard time understanding any person who cannot admit, “I am wrong.” Evidently, Fonzie is not the only one who cannot articulate those humbling words. Part of the human experience is learning from our mistakes, failures and ineptness. No one can expect to grow as a human being without acknowledging that what they did, how they did it and the thought processes that produced the action where wrong. You end up with that old proverb, “Doing the same thing over and over without getting the desired results is insanity.”

President Obama stepped in it when during the debate making a big deal about when he admitted it was terrorism that struck the Benghazi, Libya embassy this last September 11. The only explanation any honest observer could give in his remark to check the manuscript is that he was hoping enough people would see his perspective about his last comments saying that no act of terror would go unanswered. And yes, there have been a few, like Katie Couric. For the rest of us “non Kool-Aid drinking” Americans saw the obvious the first time, especially after two weeks of dodging the question, and send out his propaganda chorus to say it was a spontaneous attack from a demonstration fueled by an internet video.

Is it a psychological problem when people can’t simple say, I was wrong”? Is it a vanity thing to not owned up to the truth? Is it failing of an individual’s character, or value system, that prevents them from humbling themselves like regular humans and just say, “I did that wrong”? I know I am not smart enough to speculate about the answer.

Something else I heard during the debate and have heard others  say something similar. It has been obvious to several observers that President Obama has conducted the Office of the President under a set of Collectivist/Socialist theories. Although these theories have proven failures for over 200 years, still there are those that think they can get it right. They are not evil people (I believe that President Obama has been demonized which is wrong to do. No one deserves that).

President Obama several times, “I feel that….”, “I believe that……” as well as other like phrasing. That indicates to me a man with well-meaning motivations TRYING philosophies that are counter to the Founders of our country, and the Representative Republic they designed for us. I do not know the man’s heart, and unlike God, I cannot see his spirit or know his intentions. I know God has commanded that we do not judge one another. Unfortunately, those of us on the Right have stooped to that level, and we have been, and are, wrong. I have repented, and I hope we all do the same.

According to all the reports I have heard today many people who supported President Obama in 2008 have already switched their support. You know that has become serious when the New York Times prints articles pointing out your flaws, thinking, and conduct. Even one of the most liberal of all Senators, Diane Feinstein has come out criticizing the President and the Whitehouse.

If in fact that is the case and President Obama has tried to perfect the philosophies, ideologies and theories of Collectivism/Socialism, than that helps me understand why he is so reluctant to own up to being wrong. I know that I will continue to pray for President Obama as I have for all Presidents I have lived under. I pray you are all doing the same.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Tonights Presidential Debate


ROMNEY WON!!!!!!!!!

True to all the pre debate hype the President was more aggressive. However, his method of aggression brought memories of Al Gore and George Bush. More than once he got inserted himself into Mitt Romney’s space, including getting close to going toe to toe.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: He was more engaged, more animated, yet all he said was what he has said all along. Nothing new, and in fact, at times he spoke so fast that it made it obvious he was quoting from rote. He introduced nothing new. The Fact-Checkers are going to have a field day with his accusations of Mitt Romney, as well as his explanations of the Libya debacle. Chris Wallace of FOX News Sunday has already identified one major lie about what he said about the Benghazi murders. NO HE DID NOT SAY THEY WERE TERRORIST RELATED. He said, at the conclusion of his speech, that acts of terror will not stand. That is NOT identifying the attack as terrorist related.

President Obama was his typical charming self at times. However, his rhetoric seemed to fall on deaf ears as you watched the body language of the audience.

MITT ROMNEY: The same “Chairman of the Board” presence and stance. Related very well with the audience, especially the people asking the questions. Did you notice the first young man? The question was supposed to be for Mitt, but the young man never took his eyes off President Obama. What does that say?

Mr. Romney was confident, and introduced more details the Left has been battering him about. He kept his cool even when President Obama got in his face.

I was very disappointed with whoever directed the broadcast. We were told in the beginning that the cameras would not show the other man when one of them was answering the question. That was destroyed immediately. We were told there would be a running total of the amount of Tweets where going on about the debate. That only flashed once.

Then there was the moderator. Her facial expressions and body language made it abundantly clear she did not like Mitt Romney and said so with those expressions and body language. According to those that keep such records, President Obama had several minutes more to speak than Mitt Romney. Oh well.

On to the last debate.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

“Details?!?! I Don’t Have to Give You Any Stinkin’ Details!”


Anyone else out there as tired as I am about the Left moaning over the Romney Campaign’s lack of details in their proposed plans. STOP ALREADY!!!!

I am waiting for someone in the media, especially FOX, to ask one of these whiners to give us all the details CANDIDATE OBAMA gave in 2008;

  • How many details were given in HOPE and CHANGE? That was cleverly designed to have each person listening to him, form his or her own definitions of what hope and change meant.
  • He gave some details to his proposal on Health Care, however, every one of those details became the takeover of the health industry, put people like me out of health insurance sales, and turn out an oppressive piece of legislature that no one can really explain. Look how the details are still leaking out about this monstrosity.
  • How many details were given about his proposal to reduce the debt, and get spending in control?
  • How many details did you hear about becoming energy independent?
  • How about Iraq? How many details were expected of him on how he was going to end the war and bring the military home?
  • Etc., etc., etc..

I would like to see Mitt Romney bring this up and then say, “Anyone going into this office with details is a dictator, not a negotiator. The details develop in the discussions, research and negotiations finding common ground to solve problems. As an experienced manager of people Mitt Romney knows that dictators don’t get as much done as leaders.

President Obama has proven NOT to be such a leader. Instead, he has bypassed Congress multiple times by issuing unconstitutional Executive Orders. That is the action of a DICTATOR.

Peace and prosperity has always followed genuine leaders whose drive is the betterment of those he or she is responsible to lead. Markets grow under such leaders because they have the confidence that their investments have greater protection and opportunity to succeed. Strength is grown because the economy thrives under a leader who gets out-of-the-way and lets market forces do what they do best. Respect is elevated in the eyes of other World Leaders because they recognize uncompromised values that puts the needs of the people first, their own personal recognition last and the honor of their nation foremost in every decision. World leaders also fear such leaders because they have no doubt about the resolve to protect the entirety of the people, commerce, military and the rights of the citizens.

I believe Mitt Romney is such a leader. While I have many disagreements with him, I still see an accomplished manager of people, designer of successful plans to recover, heal and grow our economy, and a leader that the rest of the world can respect.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire


Unless you live under a rock, you have heard the accusations of the Left saying Mitt Romney lied at the last debate and that is why he won the debate. Although the President had every opportunity to point out any lies, he chose to be “polite”.  Did you notice how Mitt Romney pointed out the Presidents misrepresentations of Mitt’s plan, but with all proper respect due the office of the President? Until today, no one on the Left could articulate what Mitt Romney lied about.

Now, one of the Presidents spokespersons is proclaiming Mitt Romney lied about his 5 Trillion Dollar tax cut. This same women said after she first heard Mitt Romney’s explanation about the tax cut that it was conceivable. Today she claims she never said that, even when presented with video evidence. According to her, the Romney/Ryan team is not honest, and of course, they use the word LIAR very liberally.

Let us put this to rest. Nonpartisan economic analyst has said, the Romney Plan is plausible as represented. Enough said.

Now, on another, yet connect, subject, the Congressional hearings on the Benghazi Embassy attack was heard yesterday. I took the time to watch it on C-Span. On the witness panel were several “Whistle Blowers” detailing the facts that what the White House ordered to be told the public through U.N. Ambassador Wright was in fact, deliberate lies (there is that word again). For a week they covered up what they knew from the very moment of the attack was a lie, because the woman responsible for declining the requests for more security people watched the entire attack in real-time via video from Benghazi. THEY KNOW IMMEDIATELY THAT IT WAS A PLANNED, MILITARY STYLE, COORDINATED DELIBERATE ATTACK, and had nothing to do with a demonstration or a video.

It was noteworthy that more than half the committee members were missing. Also noteworthy is that while the Republicans asked the correct probing questions, the Democrat representatives (only three or four) made statements referring to President Regan’s time and all the foreign attacks we suffered under his presidency. They referred to other bad behavior to cover over the Benghazi attack.

Additionally noteworthy was an exchange between a Republican and Democrat colleagues. The Republican representative accused Ambassador Wright of deliberately lying to the American people in her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows. Immediately the Democrat representative got highly indignant and exclaimed how improper it was to call the ambassador a liar. Really. It did happen. No, I didn’t hear any snickering, but the expressions on everyone’s face said it all.

Typical of the Left. They find it acceptable to demonize their opponents and call them liars, yet it is unacceptable for the Right to do the same. They continue to prove that not anything they say can be trusted. The so-called “Tolerant” Party is in fact very INTOLERANT of anyone who opposes them. Their self-righteous dogma continues to lower their Moral Standards Bar. Any further drop and the bar will become a threshold.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Who Showed Up Last Night?


It did not take long to notice who showed up for the debate last night. President Obama revealed more about his real self;

  • Uneasy without the Teleprompter
  • Uneasy when the discussion is not scripted.
  • Embarrassed about his record. I believe that is why he couldn’t look at Mitt Romney while Romney was talking.
  • His body language screamed he was not comfortable, not happy to be there and appeared to act like a child being scolded.
  • His presentation was nothing new, and repeated the spin of his campaign. When Romney called him on it, he had no satisfactory response.

The “Chairman of the Board” Romney showed up and ready to take charge of the situation. He was confident, unswerving and well prepared for the meeting;

  • He clearly pointed out all of Candidate Obama’s promises that have gone unrealized as if he were holding a Senior Manager for not achieving what was committed.
  • He clearly provided enough details that any candidate could make explaining that he knows he cannot get cooperation when he presents a plan of action under the attitude of, “My way or the highway”.
  • With all the grace due to President and his office, Mitt Romney corrected the misrepresented claims of the Left about who and what Mitt Romney stands for and wants to do.
  • He would not let the moderator create a unleveled playing field toward the President. He demanded what was right and succeeded.
  • He held the President’s feet to the fire about misrepresentations on Obama Care, budgets and taxes.

We saw two very different men with two very different backgrounds and experience;

  • America found out what happened when you elect a person to office who has absolutely no experience to qualify them to run that office.
  • Mitt Romney stands for what has always made America strong and prosperous; a Free Market unencumbered by Federal interference with over regulations and hampering taxes.
  • President Obama believes in Collective Socialism. Every country that has tried this has failed, or is failing at this point.
  • Mitt Romney stands for personal freedom and personal accountability. Left to themselves, free people can produce more, invent more and as a result, pay more taxes from their efforts.
  • Because President Obama is deeply entrenched in the ideology of the Democrat Party’s main mantra, “The Democratic Party is Dependent on the American People Being Dependent”, he stands for massive government “Nanny State” making everyone’s decisions about what the government thinks is best for you. When he talks about education and jobs smacks of Communists determining what you are best suited for and train you to do that job/career only.

This morning, highlights of President Obama speaking at a rally were business as usual. His “put-down” of Mitt Romney was consistent with his total disrespect of anyone else’s opinion. I believe that part of President Obama was unmasked last night and I hope the unmasking continues. Even some of the MSM (Main Stream Media) acknowledged that the clear winner was Mitt Romney. Chris Matthews was beside himself that President Obama’s performance was so bad and pointed out the failings that all the honest observers expressed.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

“Told You So”


The Main Stream Media is all a tweeter about a video of Mitt Romney talking to people at a private fund raiser. In fact, every thing he said is true, but the press has him hating everything and everybody.

FACT: Starting with President Johnson the Democratic Party has successfully created a DEPENDENT UNDERCLASS of people consisting of certain racial groups, people in poverty, and their heirs. So successful has their efforts been, that now 47% of the American people depend on the United States government for part or all of their subsistence. They also do not pay any Federal Income Taxes. These people have developed a number of different labels identifying them as being a part of this Dependent Underclass. Recently a new label has been created; “Bitter Clingers”. I’m sure that does not require any expounding.

FACT: Unless all this spending on Entitlements Spending is brought under control, our country will be bankrupt. For those of you who have done such studies, you know that at the point of a nations bankrupt monetary system is when a dictator steps up, proclaiming he has the solution, and all the freedoms we’ve enjoyed, and taken for granted will be gone. There is abundant evidence proving President Obama has been deliberately driving our country to that point.

FACT: Anyone who will not own up to responsibility for disaster cannot be trusted to fix that disaster and lead the way to prosperity.

FACT: Those that do NOT Believe in personal prosperity, corporate prosperity and rewarding individual achievement cannot be trusted to lead a nation into financial independence.

FACT: You cannot trust a President who issues illegal Executive Orders when he doesn’t get his way through Congress. Such conduct is DICTATOR in origin, and practice.

FACT: You cannot trust an individual to lead when all their life they have not had ANY LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE. A Majority of American hired such a man. How’s it working for you?

FACT: You cannot continue to write bad checks knowingly to be NSF and hope the situation will get better. At some point you have to stop, eliminate all the excess, and get your financial house in order.

FACT: Blaming failure on someone else gets old. At some point, those that gave you a vote will go away and look for another leader.

FACT: The American People ARE NOT as stupid as you think President Obama and the DNC.

FACT: We have to vote them OUT.

Category:

General, Political

Tagged with:

Libya commemorates 9/11


Editor’s Choice: http://www.humanevents.com/

Libya commemorates 9/11

By: Ann Coulter
9/12/2012 05:36 PM

When President Obama intervened in Libya last year, he claimed that “it’s in our national interest to act” to remove a tyrant who — in response to Bush’s invasion of Iraq — had just given up his weapons of mass destruction and pledged to be America’s BFF. Apparently Gadhafi neglected to also tell Obama, “I’ve got your back.”

Obama said: “We must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms … our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for the governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.”

The Libyan mob was the equivalent of our founding fathers! (If you overlook the part about it being a murderous Islamic mob.)

Meanwhile, Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, said: “The people we are fighting for in Libya, the backbone of that movement, are former mujahedeen from around the world.” We are “enabling people who may not be formally aligned with al-Qaida but who want the same things to grasp ever closer to power.”

Scheuer said the media had taken “a few English-speaking Arabs who are pro-democracy and a few Facebook pages out of the Middle East and extrapolated that to a region-wide love of secular democracy,” adding, “It is as insane a situation as I’ve ever encountered in my life.”

No wonder Obama’s running for re-election on his foreign policy expertise!

Among Republicans, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum all called for aggressive action against Gadhafi, including enforcement of a no-fly zone.

Santorum cited Reagan’s 1986 bombing of Libya (after Gadhafi had killed American servicemen in Berlin), saying, “If you want to be Reaganesque, it seems the path is pretty clear.”

Gingrich took all sides, first demanding: “Exercise a no-fly zone this evening. We don’t need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening. This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with.”

Then, two weeks later, he said: “I would not have intervened.”

Only Mitt Romney and Haley Barbour resisted calling for aggressive action against Gadhafi, with Romney merely criticizing Obama’s deer-in-the-headlights response, and Barbour stating more directly, “I don’t think it’s our mission to make Libya look like Luxembourg.” No offense, he said, “but it is not ever going to look like what we’d like.”

The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman exulted that the Arab peoples “have come up with their own answer to violent extremism and the abusive regimes we’ve been propping up. … It’s called democracy.”

The Washington Post’s David Ignatius praised Obama’s major shift in strategy in seeing the Libyan uprising as a “positive development” and refusing to provide aid to the embattled dictator. “My own instinct,” he said, “is that Obama is right.”

French liberal blowhard Bernard-Henri Levy announced that “Libya will go down in history as the anti-Iraq. Iraq was a democracy parachuted in by a foreign power in a country which hadn’t asked for it. Libya was a rebellion which demanded help from an international coalition.”

The Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette editorialized: “Most of the world is rejoicing because of the historic success in Libya. We’re glad it was accomplished by Libya’s people, not by a U.S. invasion ordered by right-wing American politicians.”

I note that the American ambassador in Iraq has not been murdered and his corpse dragged through the streets. I also recall that, a few years ago, when Muslims around the globe erupted in rioting over some Dutch cartoons, one Muslim country remained utterly pacific: George W. Bush’s Iraq.

Apparently U.S. invasions ordered by right-wing American politicians are the only ones that work in the Middle East. Fake uprisings orchestrated by Muslim fanatics are less propitious.

Learn your history, Americans. The American Revolution was not the revolt of a mob. It was a carefully thought-out plan for a republic, based on ideas painstakingly argued by serious men in the process of creating what would become the freest, most prosperous nation in world history.

The much-ballyhooed “Arab Spring,” with mobs of men gang-raping American reporters, firing guns in the air and murdering their erstwhile dictators, is more akin to the pointless bloodletting of the French Revolution.

That godless antithesis to the founding of America is the primogenitor of the horrors of the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitler’s Nazi Party, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot’s slaughter and America’s periodic mob uprisings, from Shays’ Rebellion to today’s union thugs in Madison, Wis., and Occupy Wall Street.

Americans did win freedom and greater individual rights with their revolution. By contrast, the French Revolution resulted in bestial savagery, a slaughter of all the revolution’s leaders, followed by Napoleon’s dictatorship, followed by another monarchy, and then finally something resembling an actual republic 80 years later.

Violent mob uprisings have never led to a functioning democratic republic.

Category:

General

Tagged with:

Obama calls Romney ‘new’ to foreign policy, recalling ’08 criticism


Published September 10, 2012: www.FoxNews.com

A little more than four years ago, Hillary Clinton suggested then-Democratic primary opponent Barack Obama was so naïve on the world stage he’d need a “foreign policy instruction manual” should he win office.

Fast forward to the 2012 Democratic National Convention. Obama, now the president, accepted his party’s nomination for a second term by touting his experience as a steady leader in the face of overseas crises and mocked his Republican challenger as “new to foreign policy.”

How times have changed.

But the president’s new tactic — to incorporate into his campaign message the sense that he is the tested leader, and that Mitt Romney is a newbie — could be a risky one. For starters, it recalls the very criticism against Obama, like the above line from Clinton, when he first ran.

“Obama had probably less foreign policy experience (when he first ran for president) than Romney has,” said Steffen Schmidt, political science professor at Iowa State University.

Schmidt also noted that Romney is hardly alone among non-incumbent candidates in not having a tremendous foreign policy background. “The truth of the matter is, presidents learn on the job,” he said.

Obama, in an official sense, may have had a bit more foreign policy experience when he first ran than Romney does today.

Obama, as a first-term senator, was a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And he took several foreign trips. He traveled in 2005 with Republican Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar to Russia and Eastern Europe to visit nuclear and biological weapons facilities. The following year, Obama traveled to the Middle East. Obama, the senator, made another foreign trip to several African countries in late 2006 as well.

Obama, though, downplayed the value of that experience during his 2008 primary run. “Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world,” he said in April 2008, according to an account from the time in The New York Times. “This I know. When Sen. Clinton brags, ‘I’ve met leaders from 80 countries,’ I know what those trips are like. I’ve been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There’s a group of children who do a native dance. You meet with the C.I.A. station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. … And then, you go.”

Obama instead had stressed his time living abroad, as well as a visit to Pakistan back in the 1980s.

Romney, though, also lived abroad — in France as a Mormon missionary — in the 1960s. And both Romney and Obama, as presidential candidates, conducted high-profile overseas tours to bolster their campaigns.

Obama’s, which included an address to a massive crowd in Berlin, was likely better received. Romney stumbled on his summertime tour abroad, most notably when he suggested Britain might not be ready for the 2012 Olympic Games.

Obama seized on that gaffe during his nomination address last Thursday in Charlotte, N.C.

“My opponent and his running mate are new to foreign policy,” Obama said. “But from all that we’ve seen and heard, they want to take us back to an era of blustering and blundering that cost America so dearly. After all, you don’t call Russia our No. 1 enemy — not Al Qaeda — Russia, unless you’re still stuck in a Cold War mind warp.

“You might not be ready for diplomacy with Beijing if you can’t visit the Olympics without insulting our closest ally,” Obama said.

Obama went on to say: “You know, I recognize that times have changed since I first spoke to this convention. The times have changed, and so have I. I’m no longer just a candidate. I’m the president.”

Schmidt said Obama may be trying to inject more foreign policy into the mix, not just to deflect from other issues but to defend his administration against a GOP talking point that the president is “leading from behind” on the world stage.

Indeed, the Romney campaign released a memo over the weekend that highlighted the president’s “manifold failures on foreign policy and national security.” While Obama touts the successful takedown of Usama bin Laden and the official end of the Iraq war under his watch, Republican claims he has done little to slow what they see as Iran’s march toward a nuclear weapon.

Sen. John McCain, the Republican Party’s 2008 nominee, critiqued both Obama and Romney on the foreign policy front in an interview with the Associated Press over the weekend. In the interview, McCain said national security was largely missing from the GOP convention.

“It’s the job of presidents and candidates to lead and articulate their vision for America’s role in the world. The world is a more dangerous place than it’s been since the end of the Cold War, and so I think the president should lead and I think candidates for the presidency should lead and talk about it, and I’m disappointed that there hasn’t been more,” McCain said. He was most critical of the current administration, on issues like Iran and Syria.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Romney: ‘If last night was the party,’ jobs report is ‘hangover’


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room

By Justin Sink – 09/07/12 09:32 AM ET

Mitt Romney slammed President Obama over a disappointing August jobs report in a statement Friday, declaring that “if last night was the party, this morning is the hangover.”

“For every net new job created, nearly four Americans gave up looking for work entirely. This is more of the same for middle class families who are suffering through the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression,” Romney continued. “After 43 straight months of unemployment above 8 percent, it is clear that President Obama just hasn’t lived up to his promises and his policies haven’t worked. We aren’t better off than they were four years ago.”

The economy added 96,000 jobs in August, and unemployment fell from 8.3 to 8.1 percent. But economists had expected around 150,000 jobs to be added, and the 368,000 people who dropped out of the workforce last month is the highest amount in years.

Other Republicans also pounced on the jobs numbers, looking to stem any momentum the president might have gained from this week’s Democratic National Convention.

“Just hours after President Obama asked America for a second term, we received a clear reminder that he has yet to keep his number one promise to fix the economy,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus in a statement. “The indisputable message of today’s job report: We’re not creating jobs fast enough, and we’re certainly not better off than we were four years ago.Time is up Mr. President.”

Top House Republicans also slammed the number, with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) saying in a statement “these jobs numbers aren’t good enough.”

“Results matter. Over the past three and a half years, we haven’t seen results. Young Americans are growing up in a jobless economy, middle class families face more hardships and our nation is losing ground globally,” Cantor said.

And aides to Romney knocked the jobs figures on Twitter.

“I did the arithmetic, per Bill Clinton’s suggestion. For every net new job in August, nearly 4 people stopped looking for work,” wrote top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom.

Republicans will likely continue to hammer the president on the report throughout the day. Both Romney and running mate Paul Ryan scheduled cable news interviews for Friday morning, and the Romney campaign has four rallies scheduled for throughout the day.

 

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

We All “Belong to” the Government?


– The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation – http://blog.heritage.org –

We All “Belong to” the Government?

Posted By Julia Shaw On September 6, 2012 @ 12:15 pm In Featured,First Principles | 2 Comments

The city of Charlotte’s convention motto this week is “We make it possible [1].” And who is this “we”?

Here’s the host committee’s answer: [2] “Government is the only thing that we all belong to. We have different churches, different clubs, but we’re together as a part of our city, or our county, or our state, and our nation.”

What a dreary outlook. Government as our most important association. Every other association in our lives—family, church, Boy Scouts—separates us. Only government unites us.

Intentionally or not, the line echoes President Obama’s off-the-prompter remarks during a speech in Roanoke, Virginia, in July.

“[L]ook, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own,” the President said [3]. “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Commentators have bent over backward to cover for these comments by insisting the President couldn’t have meant what he said. They’ve said that, taken in context, his remarks amount to a statement that individual business owners didn’t build the “roads, bridges, infrastructure, education, emergency services and law and order” that make it possible to run a business. Yet no one is arguing for eliminating roads and bridges.

But here’s what is being argued, both by Obama and again by the host committee: Government makes things happen—it’s the mother’s milk of human flourishing.

The perfect case in point is the “Julia” campaign, which traces a fictional woman’s life and ascribes all good things in it to federal—specifically Obama Administration—initiatives. In this world, Julia’s good life wasn’t built by her, or her parents, or her community, but by the government.

The audacity of this argument is rare. It was first advanced by Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, drawing on the work of Herbert Croly. TR’s frankness aside, progressives usually prefer to advance their ideology under the cloak of non-ideological pragmatism—liberals say they’re just doing “what works.”

But the tagline and the video combined with President Obama’s comment—“We make it possible” because “you didn’t build that”—reveal how limitless the progressive vision of government is.

If we’re really incapable of ruling ourselves, then we need government to bless and subsidize every decision we make and provide us with meaning in our lives. But if we are indeed self-governing citizens, then we grant government limited power to perform certain tasks clearly articulated in our founding documents, tasks that we as citizens and members of civil society cannot perform.

Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org

URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/06/we-all-belong-to-the-government/

URLs in this post:

[1] We make it possible: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/08/21/3468884/the-dnc-means-big-business.html

[2] host committee’s answer:: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gLa9Te8Blw&feature=youtu.be

[3] the President said: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia

Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.

 

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

DNC Observations


If I were a stranger to American history and politics, I would have come away from this weeks speeches with the impression that the Democrats were a group of Freedom Fighters battling dictators, demonic leaders and tormentors who hated women, children, education, the military, freedom, healthcare, poor people, anyone trying to lift themselves up a level in the society hierarchy, rappers of the financial districts and haters of everything and everyone. According to what I heard, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are liars and incapable of telling the truth. According to what I heard the Republican Party want to go backwards to some undetermined era where women had no vote, no health care, no right to her own body, no access to contraceptives and children have to go to schools that are broken down and inadequate.

I also got the impression that all Republicans are so awful that they deserved to be mocked. According to what I heard Republicans have no workable ideas, and have only caused trouble, financial ruin and disasters that the Democrats have to fix. I walked away with the idea that the Republicans could only be conquered by force even if that meant war. I heard every speaker describe a political party that owned all the good answers to life, and without them, the world as we know it would fall apart. Then I heard a commentator actually say that the DNC proved they were the only ones that cared about America’s military.

According to the leader of this DNC, he was hindered by this enemy called Republicans and was unable to fulfill the promises he made about fixing all the Republicans disasters. He claimed he need more time and everyone would have to fight to see to it that he was given that chance. I learned that only he, President Obama, and his Vice President, Joe Bidden, are the only ones possessing the intellect, reason, experience and foresight to finish fixing the malaise created by those horrible Republicans.

The people I was with explained to me that the man who offered up a prayer was a cleric of high importance. He was a Cardinal of a sect known as Catholics, who, among so many other things, have stated publicly that they hate the killing of babies, especially while they are in their mother’s womb. I thought, only monsters would deliberately kill babies. They must be Republicans. Anyway, these people were perplexed that he would honor the DNC with his presence and pray for them because the monsters that kill babies are the DNC, not those pesky Republicans. I’m confused. You American have a strange way to govern your people.

Well, it’s over. I’m told that now these two groups will go out and yell about each other, making all sorts of claims about one another. I am more confused. Why aren’t the electorate more knowledgeable about the issues facing their great nation to be able to decide who is telling the truth? Why are the American people so ignorant about their own national history, issues, reasonable solutions and who is holding to the truth?

Why is there so much hate? Where are the peacemakers? Where are the statesman that can bring peace to the entire electorate? Why all the yelling? What aren’t all the people in prayer, or have they given up on the God they claim to serve? Questions, nothing but questions.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

A MUST READ FOR MULTIPLE REASONS


Rape Victim Stands Up for Todd Akin

rebeccakiessling_CroppedIt’s hard for men to speak out on the issue of abortion and rape. First, men do not get pregnant, and second, men rarely get raped by women, although it does happen. Rape is not about sex. It’s about power and domination.

So when Todd Akin used the phrase “illegitimate rape,” it sounded chauvinistic. Is there any other kind of rape? Isn’t all rape “illegitimate”? By definition, rape is illegitimate.

I believe the reason so many men like Sean Hannity and Mitt Romney threw Akin under the bus so quickly is that there was no way they were going to win an argument with an already biased pro-Obama media and the pro-abortion attack machine that’s always on the march.

While doing my daily reading to keep up on the news, I can across a post from a victim of rape. Not only was she raped, but she was conceived as the result of a rape. Her name is Rebecca Kiessling, and she writes the following:

“Though I’ve previously written that the comment [by Congressman Akin] was a faux pas and unnecessarily uttered, I’d like to address the underlying implications of such a statement, which was very similar to Ron Paul’s phraseology about an ‘honest rape’ when he too was asked about abortion in the case of rape. Are legislators really to blame for implying that there are false claims of rape? Is there a history of illegitimate rape claims, particularly as it relates to this issue of pregnancy and rape? Do some women fabricate these claims? If so, who is to blame for any tendency in our society to question the veracity of rape victims’ accounts? Skeptical lawmakers, judges, juries, media, and the public, or the women who have cried wolf?

Remember that Rebecca is a victim and product of rape. When she was in law school she was beaten up by her “boyfriend” that left her with a broken jaw, loose teeth, and a crushed upper jaw. This experience led her into family law. She continues:

“As a young attorney, I was idealistic and naïve – absolutely indignant that any judge or Friend of the Court referee would dare question the claims of a victim of domestic violence. After all, she finally had the courage to leave the abusive situation after having been threatened, abused and terrorized. How on Earth could a judge or Friend of the Court referee doubt her account and refuse to grant, or dismiss, a Personal Protection Order? I thought that these people must be uncaring women-haters, showing deference only to men. Maybe they were even abusers themselves?!”

It was through experience that she learned that some of her clients lied about their claims of domestic violence so they could get the upper hand in a divorce or child custody dispute. “Finally, the reality struck me,” she writes. “These judges are skeptical because there are women who cry wolf. That’s when I began seeing the judges in a new light, and my resentment grew toward the women who lied. I saw the reality that my clients who really were abused had a difficult time with the court system because of these other women who were ruining it for the real victims.”

Because she needed extensive reconstructive dental work done, she had been referred to a free service of the Give Back A Smile Program. Because it was free and offered to people of domestic violence, she had to prove she was a “legitimate victim,” that she wasn’t a fraud. The scrutiny was not because the people involved in the program were not sensitive to the issue of rape; it was “the result of women who have cried wolf.”

Do women lie about being rape? Not all of them, and it’s the liars that make it bad for real victims. Rebecca Kiessling mentions “the Duke LaCrosse team false rape claim case.” But there’s an even more famous case that served as the basis of the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion case — the testimony of Norma McCorvey — Jane Roe. It was her claim of rape that set the case in motion. This is her testimony on January 21, 1998, before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

“My name is Norma McCorvey. I’m sorry to admit that I’m the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade. The affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court didn’t happen the way I said it did, pure and simple. I lied! Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffey needed an extreme case to make their client look pitiable. Rape seemed to be the ticket. What made rape even worse? A gang rape! It all started out as a little lie, but my little lie grew and became more horrible with each telling.”

The death of tens of millions of pre-born babies is the result of the pro-abortion community lying about rape. Rebecca Kiessling sums it up nicely:

“So the next time you hear anyone complaining about Todd Akin’s ‘legitimate rape’ remark, I want you to remember that abortion rights activists are the women who cried wolf. They are the ones who are squarely responsible for the skepticism we see today regarding women who claim to be pregnant by rape, and they’ve set an example for other women to lie about it too. For those on the left who criticize Akin, I can assuredly call you out as hypocrites.

Let’s petition to get Rebecca Kiessling to speak at the Republican National Convention. Every American should hear her story.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Preparing to Vote Number 6


I am constantly disgusted with what I hear people say. They either parrot what they have heard someone say, or they have no clue what is really going on in the country. Considering the fact that we average less than 50% of Americans voting, the reasons are becoming more and more evident.

Jessie Waters, of the O’Reilly Factor, does on the street interviews and asks the public questions about our society, politics and entertainment. It astonishes me the number of people who cannot name the President, or know what is really going on in the world, or politics. Yet they can name entertainers, actors, and whatever they are doing. The lack of knowledge is a growing problem in America and one of the main reasons we are experiencing such a rapid decline in our society.

In the book of Hoses, chapter 4, verse 6, God is recorded as saying, “My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.” (NIV). That has prompted me to add to the series of “Preparing to Vote” that my dad has started, and I have shared with you.

Often I ask people around me to define certain terms we hear politicians from the Left using on a regular bases. No one has been able to give a definition, yet they acknowledge they have heard the words or phrases. I believe the Left is counting on people NOT researching these words which unmasks their true intentions and beliefs.

So, in this edition, we will discuss the term, “Social Justice”. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice) “Social Justice” is;

Social justice is justice exercised within a society, particularly as it is exercised by and among the various social classes of that society. A socially just society is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, understands and values human rights, and recognizes the dignity of every human being.[1][2][3]

Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system. The Constitution of the International Labour Organization affirms that “universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice.”[4] Furthermore, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action treats social justice as a purpose of the human rights education.[5]

The term and modern concept of “social justice” was coined by the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli in 1840 based on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and given further exposure in 1848 by Antonio Rosmini-Serbati.[1][2][6][7][8] The word has taken on a very controverted and variable meaning, depending on who is using it. The idea was elaborated by the moral theologian John A. Ryan, who initiated the concept of a living wage. Father Coughlin also used the term in his publications in the 1930s and the 1940s. It is a part of Catholic social teaching, the Protestants’ Social Gospel, and is one of the Four Pillars of the Green Party upheld by green parties worldwide. Social justice as a secular concept, distinct from religious teachings, emerged mainly in the late twentieth century, influenced primarily by philosopher John Rawls. Some tenets of social justice have been adopted by those on the left of the political spectrum.

Social justice from religious traditions

Judaism

Main article: Tikkun olam

In To Heal a Fractured World: The Ethics of Responsibility, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks states that social justice has a central place in Judaism. One of Judaism’s most distinctive and challenging ideas is its ethics of responsibility reflected in the concepts of simcha (“gladness” or “joy”), tzedakah (“the religious obligation to perform charity and philanthropic acts”), chesed (“deeds of kindness”), and tikkun olam (“repairing the world”).

Christianity

Catholicism

Main article: Catholic social teaching

Catholic social teaching consists of those aspects of Roman Catholic doctrine which relate to matters dealing with the collective aspect of humanity. A distinctive feature of the Catholic social doctrine is their concern for the poorest members of society. Two of the seven key areas[9] of “Catholic social teaching” are pertinent to social justice:

  • Life and dignity of the human person: The foundational principle of all “Catholic Social Teaching” is the sanctity of all human life and the inherent dignity of every human person. Human life must be valued above all material possessions.
  • Preferential option for the poor and vulnerable: Catholics believe Jesus taught that on the Day of Judgement God will ask what each person did to help the poor and needy: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.”[10] The Catholic Church believes that through words, prayers and deeds one must show solidarity with, and compassion for, the poor. The moral test of any society is “how it treats its most vulnerable members. The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the conscience of the nation. People are called to look at public policy decisions in terms of how they affect the poor.”[11]

Even before it was propounded in the Catholic social doctrine, social justice appeared regularly in the history of the Catholic Church:

  • The term “social justice” was adopted by the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli in the 1840s, based on the work of St. Thomas Aquinas. He wrote extensively in his journal Civiltà Cattolica, engaging both capitalist and socialist theories from a natural law viewpoint. His basic premise was that the rival economic theories, based on subjective Cartesian thinking, undermined the unity of society present in Thomistic metaphysics; neither the liberal capitalists nor the communists concerned themselves with public moral philosophy.
  • Pope Leo XIII, who studied under Taparelli, published in 1891 the encyclical Rerum Novarum (On the Condition of the Working Classes), rejecting both socialism and capitalism, while defending labor unions and private property. He stated that society should be based on cooperation and not class conflict and competition. In this document, Leo set out the Catholic Church’s response to the social instability and labor conflict that had arisen in the wake of industrialization and had led to the rise of socialism. The Pope advocated that the role of the State was to promote social justice through the protection of rights, while the Church must speak out on social issues in order to teach correct social principles and ensure class harmony.
  • The encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (On Reconstruction of the Social Order, literally “in the fortieth year”) of 1931 by Pope Pius XI, encourages a living wage, subsidiarity, and advocates that social justice is a personal virtue as well as an attribute of the social order, saying that society can be just only if individuals and institutions are just.
  • Pope John Paul II added much to the corpus of the Catholic social teaching, penning three encyclicals which would deal with issues such as economics, politics, geo-political situations, ownership of the means of production, private property and the “social mortgage“, and private property. The encyclicals of Laborem Exercens, Solicitudo Rei Socialis, and Centesimus Annus are just a small portion of his overall contribution to Catholic social justice. Pope John Paul II was a strong advocate of justice and human rights, and spoke forcefully for the poor. He addresses issues such as the problems that technology can present should it be misused, and admits a fear that the “progress” of the world is not true progress at all, if it should denigrate the value of the human person.
  • Pope Benedict XVI‘s encyclical Deus Caritas Est (“God is Love”) of 2006 claims that justice is the defining concern of the state and the central concern of politics, and not of the church, which has charity as its central social concern. It said that the laity has the specific responsibility of pursuing social justice in civil society and that the church’s active role in social justice should be to inform the debate, using reason and natural law, and also by providing moral and spiritual formation for those involved in politics.
  • The official Catholic doctrine on social justice can be found in the book Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, published in 2004 and updated in 2006, by the Pontifical Council Iustitia et Pax

Please go to the link provided above to read more.

Does this explain why President Obama and the Left say and vote the way they do? Can you get in with them and continue the conversion of the United States of America into a Social Justice Socialist (or worst) nation? Are you planning to vote? Are you going to be an informed voter based on our own research? Are you going to sit back and let it all go to hell? Patriot or Unconcerned, self-absorbed, uncaring human taking up space?

Category:

Personal, Political, Spiritual

Tagged with:

Should Christians Support President Obama?


Dr. David Barton is more of a historian than a Biblical speaker, but very famous for his knowledge of historical facts as well as Biblical truths.

Dr. David Barton – on Obama. “Respect the Office? Yes. Respect the Man in the Office? No,  I am sorry to say.

I have noted that many elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, called upon America to unite behind Obama. Well, I want to make it clear to all who will listen that I AM NOT uniting behind Obama! I will respect the Office which he holds, and I will acknowledge his abilities as an orator and wordsmith and pray for him, BUT that is it.

I have begun today to see what I can do to make sure that he is a one-term President!

Why am I doing this? It is because:

  • I do not share Obama’s vision or value system for America;
  • I do not share his Abortion beliefs;
  • I do not share his radical Marxist’s concept of re-distributing wealth;
  • I do not share his stated views on raising taxes on those who make$150,000+ (the ceiling has been changed three times since August);
  • I do not share his view that America is Arrogant;
  • I do not share his view that America is not a Christian Nation;
  • I do not share his view that the military should be reduced by 25%;
  • I do not share his view of amnesty and giving more to illegals than our American Citizens who need help;
  • I do not share his views on homosexuality and his definition of marriage;
  • I do not share his views that Radical Islam is our friend and Israel is our enemy who should give up any land;
  • I do not share his spiritual beliefs (at least the ones he has made public);
  • I do not share his beliefs on how to re-work the healthcare system in America;
  • I do not share his Strategic views of the Middle East; and
  • I certainly do not share his plan to sit down with terrorist regimes such as Iran.

Bottom line: my America is vastly different from Obama’s, and I have a higher obligation to my Country and my GOD to do what is Right!

For eight (8) years, the Liberals in our Society, led by numerous entertainers who would have no platform and no real credibility but for their celebrity status, have attacked President Bush, his family, and his spiritual beliefs!

  • They have not moved toward the center in their beliefs and their philosophies, and they never came together nor compromised their personal beliefs for the betterment of our Country!
  • They have portrayed my America as a land where everything is tolerated except being intolerant!
  • They have been a vocal and irreverent minority for years!
  • They have mocked and attacked the very core values so important to the founding and growth of our Country!
  • They have made every effort to remove the name of GOD or Jesus Christ from our Society!
  • They have challenged capital punishment, the right to bear firearms, and the most basic principles of our criminal code!
  • They have attacked one of the most fundamental of all Freedoms, the right of free speech!
  • Unite behind Obama? Never!

I am sure many of you who read this think that I am going overboard, but I refuse to retreat one more inch in favor of those whom I believe are the embodiment of Evil!

PRESIDENT BUSH made many mistakes during his Presidency, and I am not sure how history will judge him. However, I believe that he weighed his decisions in light of the long established Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding Fathers!!!

Majority rules in America, and I will honor the concept; however, I will fight with all of my power to be a voice in opposition to Obama and his “goals for America …” I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who, if left unchecked, will destroy our Country! Any more compromise is more defeat!

I pray that the results of this election will wake up many who have sat on the sidelines and allowed the Socialist-Marxist anti-GOD crowd to slowly change so much of what has been good in America!

GOD bless you and GOD bless our Country!”

 

Category:

Personal, Political

Tagged with:

Preparing to Vote Number 5


(To my readers, please note the date of 1777 in the previous article and this one below. In difference that the battle for independence was raging, check this next article to see what was going on ‘back home’…….Benny)

Continental Congress, September 11, 1777, approved and recommended to the people that 20,000 copies of The Holy Bible be imported from other sources. This was in response to the shortage of Bibles in America caused by the Revolutionary War interrupting trade with England. The Chaplain of Congress, Patrick Allison, brought the matter to the attention of Congress, who assigned it to a special Congressional Committee, which reported:

“The use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great that your committee refers the above to the consideration of Congress, and if Congress shall not think it expedient to order the importation of types and paper, the Committee recommends that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different parts of the States of the Union.”

Whereupon it was resolved accordingly to direct said Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 copies of the Bible.

Continental Congress November 1, 1777, issued The First National Proclamation of Thanksgiving to all colonies, as a result of their victory at Saratoga. (This was a long, but good, Proclamation. Below is only part of it….Benny)

“…..That with one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their Divine Benefactor; and that together with their sincere acknowledgements and offerings, they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor, and their humble and earnest, supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance;’

“….That it may please Him, to prosper the trade and manufactures of the people, and the labour of the husbandman; that our land may yet yield its increase; to take school and seminaries of education, so necessary for cultivating the principles of true liberty, virtue and piety, under His nurturing hand, and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth ‘”in righteous, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost”.”

In 1775, John Peter Muhlenberg, who was a pastor like his father, Henry, preached a message on Ecclesiastes 3:1, “For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven.” He closed his message by saying:

“In the language of the Holy Writ, there is a time for all things. There is a time to preach and a time to fight.”

He then threw off his robes to reveal the uniform of an officer in the Revolutionary Army. That afternoon, at the head of 300 men, he marched off to join General Washington’s troops.

Category:

Patriotic, Political

Tagged with:

Why liberals behave the way they do by Ann Coulter


By: Ann Coulter
8/15/2012 05:11 PM

My smash best seller “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America” has just come out in paperback — and not a moment too soon! Democrats always become especially mob-like during presidential election campaigns.

The “root cause” of the Democrats’ wild allegations against Republicans, their fear of change, their slogans and insane metaphors, are all explained by mass psychology, diagnosed more than a century ago by the French psychologist Gustave Le Bon, on whose work much of my own book is based.

Le Bon’s 1896 book, “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,” was carefully read by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in order to learn how to incite mobs. Our liberals could have been Le Bon’s study subjects.

With the country drowning in debt and Medicare and Social Security on high-speed bullet trains to bankruptcy, the entire Democratic Party refuses to acknowledge mathematical facts. Instead, they incite the Democratic mob to hate Republicans by accusing them of wanting to kill old people.

According to a 2009 report — before Obama added another $5 trillion to the national debt — Obama’s own treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, stated that in less than 10 years, spending on major entitlement programs, plus interest payments on the national debt, would consume 92 cents of every dollar in federal revenue.

That means no money for an army, a navy, rockets, national parks, food inspectors, air traffic controllers, highways, and so on. Basically, the entire federal budget will be required just to pay for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — and the cost of borrowing money to pay for these programs.

When Social Security was enacted in 1935, the average lifespan was 61.7 years. Today, it’s almost 79 and rising. But liberals believe the age at which people can begin collecting Social Security must never, ever be changed, even to save Social Security itself.

Mobs, according to Le Bon, have a “fetish-like respect” for tradition, except moral traditions because crowds are too impulsive to be moral. That’s why liberals say our Constitution is a “living, breathing” document that sprouts rights to gay marriage and abortion, but the age at which Social Security and Medicare benefits kick in is written in stone.

Le Bon says that it is lucky “for the progress of civilization that the power of crowds only began to exist when the great discoveries of science and industry had already been effected.” If “democracies possessed the power they wield today at the time of the invention of mechanical looms or of the introduction of steam-power and of railways, the realization of these inventions would have been impossible.”

Liberals exhibit this exact groupthink fear of science not only toward light bulbs and nuclear power, but also toward medical inventions. Thus, when a majority of the country objected to Obamacare on the grounds that — among many other reasons — a government takeover of health care would destroy medical innovation, liberals stared in blank incomprehension.

They believe every drug, every diagnosis, every therapy, every cure that will ever be invented, has already been invented. Their job is to spread all the existing cures, while demonizing and stymieing pharmaceutical companies that make money by inventing new drugs.

Democrats haven’t the slightest concern about who will formulate new remedies because they are enraged at profit making and suspicious of scientific advancement.

Apart from cures that will never be invented, liberal elites will be mostly untouched by the rotten medical care to which they are consigning the rest of us. Note how Democrats’ friends, such as government unions, immediately received waivers from Obamacare. Rich or connected liberals, such as George Soros, Warren Buffett, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, will always have access to the best doctors, just as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez do.

It is similar to the way that Democrats, who refuse to pass school choice, always seem to bypass the disastrous public schools for their own children, who end up at Sidwell Friends or St. Albans.

Democrats don’t worry about how bankrupting Social Security and destroying the job market hurts black people, bitter divorcees and young people, because they can always demagogue these one-party Democratic voters simply by repeating that Republicans are racist, hate women and aren’t cool like Obama.

The truth is irrelevant; only slogans and fear mongering delight mobs.

The rest of us are forced to live in a lawless universe of no new pharmaceuticals, foreign doctors, gay marriage, girl soldiers, a health care system run by the post office, and bankrupt Social Security and Medicare systems, because liberals can’t enjoy their wealth unless other people are living in squalor.

The country will have the economy of Uganda, but Democrats will be in total control.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Silence is NOT an Option


Home / 2012 Election /

 

Christians, Silence is Not an Option

By / 12 August 2012 / 35 Comments

by Matt Barber

With the exception of one column previously penned, I pray this becomes my most widely read to date.

The secular left has mastered use of the Internet to further its extremist goals. In fact, President Obama’s web-based “Organizing for America” propaganda machine may have given him the 2008 election.

Let’s beat them at their own game.

To that end, I have a strange request. I’m asking each God-fearing, freedom-loving American who reads this column to forward it, post it, tweet it, print it out and give it to every pastor, priest or cleric you know. If you don’t know any, give it to someone who does.

Why? I agree with Barack Obama that November 2012 represents the most important election of our lifetimes – perhaps our history. Of course, that’s where my agreement with Mr. Obama both begins and abruptly ends.

Here’s the operable question: Do we want America “fundamentally transformed” to mirror the secular-socialist ideals of the radical leftist currently “occupying” the White House?

In Barack Obama’s America, individual freedom is trampled beneath jackboots as a matter of course. It’s already happening at an unprecedented rate.

One need only look to the HHS mandate forcing Christian groups – both Catholic and Protestant – to violate, under penalty of law, biblical prohibitions against abortion homicide.

Or consider recent attempts by multiple elected officials, all Democrats, to shutdown Chick-fil-A – a private, Christian-owned business – simply because its leadership holds the biblical view of marriage.

Is this George Washington’s America, or Joseph Stalin’s Russia?

It’s definitely not your father’s USA.

Instead, wouldn’t we prefer the America envisioned by our Founding Fathers? A constitutional republic wherein individual liberty – whether economic, First Amendment or Second Amendment-related – is sacrosanct and off limits?

Pastors, you’re it. You’re our front line of defense. It’s up to you to rally the troops. Now begins the second American Revolution and, as with the first, it’s on you – men of the cloth – to take the lead.

That is, if you hope to remain free to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Speaking of chicken: In recent years there’s been an epidemic of cultural inaction exhibited by far too many ministers of the gospel. It’s fear-based. “Oh, I don’t talk about political issues,” they say. “You know, ‘separation of Church and State’ and all that.”

Baloney.

If this is you – and only you and our Lord know for sure – you’ve been deceived by the enemies of God. You’ve chosen the easy way out – the path of least resistance. This is something Christ, whom all Christians are called to emulate, never did – not once.

So, respectfully, man-up, Padre! Be the “salt and light of the world,” as Christ so admonished.

But you don’t have to go it alone. There are detailed, easily digestible tools available. Civil-rights firm Liberty Counsel, for instance, is distributing more than 100,000 copies of “Silence is Not an Option,” a concise, though comprehensive, DVD and printed material collection informing pastors and churches about what is permissible regarding political activity (Please, get it for your church at LC.org or by calling 1-800-671-1776).

“The church must be empowered to confront the assaults on our culture, our faith, and our freedom,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. ”I don’t want any pastor, church leader or lay person to say, ‘What more could I have done to protect life and liberty?’”

“Silencing people of faith in the public square has always been the goal of those who realize the influence that pastors, churches and people of faith have on elections. I want pastors to remove the muzzle and replace it with a megaphone,” he said. “Pastors and churches have a lot of freedom to address biblical and moral issues, to educate people about the candidates, and to encourage people to vote. Not one church has ever lost its tax-exemption for endorsing or opposing candidates or for supporting or opposing local, state or federal laws.”

Did you get that? Despite hundreds of thousands of threatening letters sent by hard-left groups like the ACLU and Barry Lynn’s Americans United, not a single church has lost tax-exemption for socio-political activity – zip, zero, nada. Not even for endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

Indeed, if these anti-Christian bullies had been around two-and-a-half centuries ago, and our forefathers had paid them any mind, we may never have had the first American Revolution.

Don’t let them halt the second.

We’re on the precipice of the abyss, and, pastors, I think you know it. But know this too: There’s a whole lot relating to both culture and politics you can both say and do, and very little – if anything – you can’t.

Churches can educate about political, moral and biblical issues. These kinds of issues – whether abortion, marriage, feeding the poor or any community issue – are never off limits from the pastor’s pulpit, even if politicians are also talking about them. “Silence is Not an Option” systematically addresses the misrepresentations used to muzzle America’s pastors and Christian leaders.

Leading up to Ronald Reagan’s landslide presidential victory in 1980, Rev. Jerry Falwell captured the crux of the church’s apathy problem: “What is wrong in America today?” he asked. “We preachers – and there are 340,000 of us who pastor churches – we hold the nation in our hand. And I say this to every preacher: We are going to stand accountable before God if we do not stand up and be counted.”

Dr. Falwell’s words ring no less true today.

Imagine the benefit to our culture if thousands of churches across America registered millions of Christians to vote. How about pledge-drives wherein pastors ask tens-of-millions of Christians to simply commit to voting biblical values?
The possibilities are limitless.

Proverbs 4:18 reminds us: “The path of the righteous is like the morning sun, shining ever brighter till the full light of day.”

Shine bright, salt and light. Don’t be choked into dark silence.

Because silence is not an option.

It can’t be.

Matt Barber(@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

 

Category:

Political, Spiritual

Tagged with:

Gallery

More Pictures Speaking Thousands of Words


Written

on August 7, 2012

You Said WHAT?


“I know you think you understand what you think I said, but what I said is not what I meant.”

That sounds like the explanation President Obama has given about his, “You didn’t build that” statement.  Of course, those of us who actually do think for ourselves know he meant it when he said it, and still does. He was hit with enough negative feedback, even from his own party that he has tried to “walk-back” his “Speaking-Without-Teleprompters” speech. Interesting what you hear when politicians go off script.

Only those dependent on the Democratic Party for their subsistence will support such ridiculous attempts at trying to hide his real commitments to Socialistic-Collectivism ideology and rule. All other Americans can see his duplicity.

Have you also noticed how his own party is backing away from him? Senator Diane Feinstein said she knows that the leaks about national security came from the White House. She never said whom, but evidently got spanked, based on her “walk-back” today. You get the feeling that President Obama’s reelection team is getting very nervous. I hope that they are seeing that most Americans are not buying their lies anymore.

One example of the Left running away from him is his attacks on Romney about Bain Capital. A growing number of Congress People and Senators are asking them to back off from the attack on capitalism and self-made wealth. Perhaps they have heard from their past contributors who are refusing to give to their reelection campaigns.

If I could make any suggestions to the Romney Campaign it would be to stop attacking President Obama, treat him like he does not exist. Instead focus on ANSWER, ANSWER, ANSWER, SOLUTION, SOLUTION, SOLUTION. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

“What Did You Say President Obama?”


Have you noticed the arrogance meter has reached it’s critical mass and the Left is actually speaking so truth as “arrogance pot” overflows. Yesterday, President Obama said, complete with video coverage, what he considered a failing in his first term of office. The economy, unemployment and record spending were not at the top of the list. His confession was that he was not a better story-teller to the American people. “STORY-TELLER?” Along with his conviction that he is the Messiah, King and smartest man on the planet, he now thinks he can talk away the many failings of His Presidency by telling better stories.

His “Talking-Points Choir” has been out today claiming he was referring the President not explaining his programs better and how he believes they will benefit the American people. This is a running theme of the Left saying that we are not smart enough to understand the proposals and just have to wait until we see how it benefits us after it is in law, and affecting our lives.

Either they are convinced that we are the most ignorant people in the world, or as I said, the “arrogance-pot” has overflowed.

In 2008, Candidate Obama exclaimed that when your opponent has no plan or answers of their own, they resort to making you seem to be someone to run away from, instead of explaining why you should run to them. Now they are accusing Mitt Romney of being a felon with Bain Capital, cheating and doing something criminal because of off shore bank accounts (notice the man who advertised the advantages of off shore banking to his customers while he was the head of a major bank, is now advising the President). Once again the Left has pulled out it’s well used play book of making accusations without ever being able to prove the accusations. (See Ann Coulter’s latest column on “Fast and Furious is not a D.C. law firm” http://www.humanevents.com/author/ann-coulter/ )

Once again, I will say that we have to use whatever means available to us to make the Left prove their “claims, accusations or surveys quoted”. Until their feet are held to the fire, they will continue to go along deliberately lying to the American people, and in almost half of the nation, get away with their felonious conduct.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Say It Long Enough


I am among a growing number of people who are getting real tired of the Left spewing lies as the quote their daily required talking-points. No matter what the question, the Lefty Puppet will say what they are programmed. Of course the answer has nothing to do with the subject at hand, the question being asked or any form of sense. The Talking Points have to be repeated ad nauseam, no matter what.

Case in point: SCOTUS (Chief Justice Roberts) pulls the mask off the monster and identifies Obama-Care as a tax. That day, the Left ran around all the talk shows celebrating that SCOTUS found the Affordable Health Care Act constitutional, when in fact SCOTUS did not. However, the next day, and up to this point, they determined that all the American people, not just their mind numbed robots, forgot at the tax celebration, and now insist it is a penalty for not buying health insurance. No matter who is asking any questions about the ruling, the answers are the same canned pomposity. When challenged, they over talk the interviewer and continue their diatribe.

Next point: The new focus for the Left is Mitt Romney’s finances. The running theme is, “He is an evil rich guy who does not understand you, care for you and will take everything you have and give it to his buddies.” Of course they side step any discussion of Senator Kerry, Kennedy and other super rich Democrats such as George Soros. You also notice there is never mentioning how the Democrats never want to talk about how they vote themselves exclusions to any tax law they pass? Yes, the Republicans are just as guilty of the exclusions.

The hypocrisy is rampant in Washington. Right or left. We need to get back to the real issues; the economy, jobs, close our borders and repeal Obama-care. Mitt Romney needs to get busy focusing in on how he proposes to fix things, dictate the national conversation around that, and forget all this mud-slinging.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

PROOF OF IGNORANCE DEBATE


The rhetoric of the Left during the President Reagan years is back. Today the Left fills the news airwaves with new, “Talking Points”. During the Reaganomics years, the primary talking points of the Left used the term, “trickle down economics.” Of course, the Left was wrong, because Reaganomics gave us great economic growth and stability through the President Clinton years. Now, the new slogans used include the terms, “No more trickledown economics, but Middle Out economics.” This is supposed to refer to economics that originate with the middle class and moving out into the marketplace benefiting everyone.

You really do not need an economic degree to see that does not work. The Left whines about billionaires and millionaires getting the tax breaks from what conservatives propose. What they fail to mention, is that the group of people conservatives want to protect and empower are the Small Business people, and the Self-Employed. These two groups of business people are responsible for a large majority of the business world in America. These are also the group affected the most with tax increases, regulations, and OBAMACARE. The Top 1% of income earners has the least amount of effect on the economy, and yet pays a large sum of the taxes collected every year.

The Left’s professional pundits and “Pot Stirrers” want their voting base to concentrate on anyone that generates wealth. According to them, such people are evil and want to keep the poor oppressed. However, their argument fails with the Independents who are the swing vote. They know that such an argument is ridicules and not worth a second thought. That begs the question, why do they keep up the same old attack, arguments and talking points? I believe they only want to “Stir the Pot” of their voter base hoping they will be motivated to get out and vote on Election Day.

The reality of the Free Market Economy is simple. Let the market drive itself, get out the way with overt regulations, and allow the market to correct itself and weed out the greedy, the Swindler, and the fraud. More people are hired, creating more taxpayers, producing more revenue into the Federal and State coffers. That enables American business to do what they do best, and the economy takes care of itself. Creating government jobs and “stimulating” the economy has never had long-term effects.

The Left has a serious problem ever admitting they are wrong and have made bad decisions. They have equally hard time admitting that any of their plans have failed and caused great national harm. For example; The Left will never admit that their strangle hold on American business has been the reason American business, especially manufacturing, has been moved to other countries. Any of these business people will tell you that staying here would have meant bankruptcy and the business closure. It is not because of greed, it is because of survival. In reality, the Left is directly responsible for driving American jobs away and into the economies of other countries. Remember the definition of insanity?

The faster we get these socialist loving people out of our government the sooner our country can recover, if it’s not too late.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

THE RIGHT NEEDS A BACKBONE


When is the Right going to develop some real backbone, face the Left with real facts about our nation and economy, and do so with some vigor and conviction? We have only a few genuine Statesmen that have established themselves as Politicians who are not afraid of a confrontation. Some of them are Governor Christie of New Jersey, Senator Rubio of Florida, Governor Perry of Texas and Herman Cain. They represent a small minority of conservative politicians that can be trusted to go to battle over what is right, just and correct. 

However, they too get caught up with the agenda of the Left and do not face the real truth of why our country is such bad shape. For example, I get angry every time I hear someone blame President Bush for the economic mess we have. Here are the facts;

  • According to the Constitution, Congress is responsible for the budget and the spending. It is their decisions that influence the American economy, not the President.
  •  With the loss of the Congress and Senate in 2006 to the Democrats, Pelosi and her gang went to work shoving through their agenda. Yes, President Bush did cave in too much, but it was the actions of the Left that started the downfall of our economy.
  •  The Democrats’ took over all the committees such as Housing (Barney Frank) and the destruction of our economy, especially the Housing Market, began. The LEFT pushed through the relaxing of the qualifications to buy a home. The Left believed that someone barely getting by could take on a home loan on a marketing plan that made the payments cheap in the beginning, but outrageous over time. That is the group of people the Left is concerned about our tax dollars saving. They really don’t care about the family who legitimately entered a contract, lost their jobs because of the mess the Left made in only two years, and had to walk away.
  • Consistent with their normal operating procedure, they blamed President Bush for the problems and anyone who supports conservatism. 

If I could advise conservatives, I would recommend they stay focused on the real culprits’ of the economic mess, stay focused on the solution (in detail) and force the national conversation to be around these points only. Starting with the Romney campaign, let us urge all conservatives to take up this direct confrontation. No more, name calling, and no more “shots”, just focus on the solutions and keep the focus clear on the real contributors of the disaster.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

MORE GIBBERISH FROM THE LEFT


Today was another example of the Left filling the news with gibberish, this dictating the conversation away from the miserable conditions of the market place and the economy. Here are a few examples;

1.) Now the Food Police wants to ban large tubs of popcorn at the movies. After the craze over the 64 ounce drinks, they thought it important to also control our lives with this restriction. With all the really important issues this country has to correct, they want us to concentrate on tubs of popcorn. What ever happened to self-responsibility? What are we asked to focus on the minors and take away the focus on the major issues facing this country? (Rhetorical question)

2.) This morning on the Meygn Kelley  show a pundit from the Left criticized Mitt Romney for not being specific on his claims that he has plans on how to fix the economy. WHAT DID YOU SAY? How specific was Candidate Obama on the 2008 campaign trail about “Hope and Change”? Has there ever been a campaign filled with more generalities? Has any candidate for President ever been so vague that he left it up to each individual to decide what his campaign rhetoric meant?

3.) Prior to President Obama’s speech in Ohio today, his campaign team released a message saying that the President would not be giving any specifics today on his plans, but would be “boxing” them, meaning, he would be generalist in his speech just like Mitt Romney was accused of being in his speech today in Ohio. “Hey Left, WE ARE NOT THE STUPID IDIOTS YOU MAKE US OUT TO BE!”

4.) It is now obvious that one of the campaign slogans President Obama is going to use this time is, “Everyone deserves a ‘Fair Shot’”. He usually quotes that after he makes a reference of the “rich” (still undefined who these rich people are) getting a tax break from President Bush (no longer running for anything). Still undefined is what he means by “Fair Shot”.

As far as I know, every one drawing breath in the United States has a “fair shot” at success. How you define success is not the subject, unless you are talking to one of the “OCCUPIERS” who measure success as entering the corporate world as a major executive making over $100,000 a year. Anyone starting out with that mindset, as well as many others that are unrealistic, will fail at their efforts. That is not the result of conservatives, or the “rich” making it impossible for someone to elevate their work, or economic status. It is just the way it is and always will be, unless we socialize everything.

However, the Left has made it more difficult for some. They are part of the Underclass the Left created as a guaranteed voting alliance. They consist of the poor, and anyone else receiving assistance from the Federal government (like many illegals that are “on the dole”). Trying to make something of yourself and going to work means, you lose the handout. For most, they would rather do nothing, collect the Welfare, and complain that they do not have more. As Stuart Barney said this morning, we are reaching the point in America where those you are not paying taxes exceed those that do pay taxes (we are at 50% now because of the unemployment crisis). Can you say “Bankruptcy”?

The conservative voice would have been silenced a long time ago, without FOX Cable and radio talk shows, The Left will continue to drown out our voice and work overtime to silence us completely. Please join in the fight to prohibit that from happening.

 

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

United States Constitution; The Presidency 101


Printed from: http://www.patriotprintshoppe.com/Const.html

Article. II.

Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the VicePresident, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section. 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

*****************************************************************************************************************

In any of what you read, did you see any part that says the President of the United States has the responsibility, or the authority, to:

  • Create jobs in America?
  • Make sure every citizen has an equal opportunity to succeed?
  • Ensure every citizen has the same success?
  • Define what success is ion America?
  • To execute judgment on free market companies that they are making too much money?
  • To declare that profit is bad?
  • To declare who is a good business person versus a bad business person?
  • To make sure all wealth is evenly distributed?

Did you read anything in the Constitution that lines up with anything President Obama has said about how he perceived the position of Presidency? This is the same man, and his vast media team, that has painted a picture of Mitt Romney;

  • As a vicious Venture Capitalist who goes about taking from the poor and giving it to his rich buddies.
  • According to Vice President Bidden Mitt Romney is “unqualified” to be President. “Mr. Vice President. How qualified was Mr. Obama before he was elected?”
  • Because he put his dog (in a kennel)on the roof of their car while on a trip.
  • Because he MIGHT have bullied someone in high school.Because their interpretation of Governor Romney’s tenure in Massachusetts was different from what the Romney Campaign is saying.

This is becoming the most ridiculous Presidential campaign in history. Let’s end the madness.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

WAR ALERT! WAR ALERT!


The Left is adding more fuel to the fire of the Class War they created. Once again they are going after wealthy people, describing them as oppressors and evil people who do not want anyone else to succeed and want to keep the poverty-stricken in poverty.

Of course, they are concentrating on Conservative wealthy people, not those of the Left. They are focusing on Mitt Romney and those wealthy people who are contributing to his campaign. Of course, there is no mention of the super wealthy on the Left; George Soros, John Kerry (married into wealth), John Edwards (made his wealth off of bilking millions of dollars out of insurance companies using junk science) and most of the politicians in Congress and The Senate.

According to the latest attack on Mitt Romney regards a steel company that went bankrupt. The facts are that Mitt was not with Bain Capital when that happened. Even so, no one is discussing the difference between a “business decision” and decision all people make every day.

Business executives of all kinds make “Business decisions” every day across America that has a negative effect on their employees. That is the nature of “business decisions”. They have to be made without the emotions of people relationships to save the business and make sure employment for those unaffected by the “business decisions”. I have known some executives to have breakdowns after making such decision because they know how it has affected the employees. However, in order for the business to remain solvent, and the bulk of the employees have a job; those “business decisions still have to be made.

I agree with the notion that the business playing field is not level. Some in business are there because they were born into the business. Others have learned how to play the “office politics game” so well that they get what they really do not deserve. That still is no excuse to work hard and smart, gather as much knowledge as possible, learn from every one’s mistakes, and then use that to move yourself up the ladder, either in that company, someone else’s, or your own. It can be done because it has been done multiple, multiple times.

You can stay the baby bird with its mouth opened saying, “gimme, gimme, gimme.” Don’t blame anyone else because you made that decision.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: