Category Archives: 2014 Election News

Dementia or Dishonesty, Pelosi Is Unfit for Office

While it still requires a willing suspension of reality to believe Rep. Nancy Pelosi (P-CA), wasn’t the spearhead of the dishonesty campaign when she stood before the American people and professed that Congress had to pass Obamacare before we could all understand what was in the bill, her latest declaration about MIT professor Jonathan Gruber doesn’t. What it does evoke is a legitimate question. Is Nancy Pelosi a habitual liar or is she suffering from dementia?

When asked about Johnathan Gruber’s admitting to the overt deception of the American people where the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was concerned, Pelosi responded:

“I don’t know who he is. He didn’t help write our bill…and…so…with all due respect to your question, you have a person who wasn’t writing our bill commenting on what was going on when we were writing the bill…”

Yet, in 2009 when Pelosi and her congressional lemmings were selling the snake oil of Obamacare to the American people, she said:

“Our bill brings down rates…I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber’s MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo, versus what will happen in our bill…”

Let’s set aside for a moment that Ms. Pelosi’s declaration that rates would go down was about as wrong as it gets – pathetically and predictably wrong. Are we to believe that the two juxtaposed statements were simply a slip up; just a malfunction of her gray matter? Again, to sign on to that idea requires a willing suspension of reality.

No, it is more likely – and probable – that Ms. Pelosi is demonstrating the Progressive ethic of “ends justifying the means.” Under that ethic, the truth is relative to the outcome desired. To Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Gruber, President Obama and Valerie Jarrett, just to name the major players, lying to; deceiving, the American people to achieve the passage of Obamacare was a necessary evil. To the Progressives – who, incidentally, believe as Jonathan Gruber does that the overwhelming majority of American people are a dull, slow-witted intellectually challenged under-class in need of their brilliance, wisdom, and superior stewardship, lest we all revert back to the ethos of the Stone Age – it is irrelevant that deception was used to acquire their legislative goal, after all, we are simply too stupid to know what is good for us; what is good for society.

This understood, it is easy to see that Ms. Pelosi’s flip-flop on the Grubster wasn’t about a defective memory, it was about sticking to the Progressive meme, not unlike John Lovitz’s Saturday Night Live character “The Liar.” The only thing missing was the rhetorical punctuation, “Yeah, that’s it. That’s the ticket!”

If Ms. Pelosi were afflicted with dementia rather than Progressivism, I would be sympathetic to her plight. No one can control the ravages of dementia; a tragic and debilitating disease. But she isn’t – to the best of my knowledge – afflicted with dementia, she is afflicted with Progressivism, an ideological malady, and one that a person has to make a conscious decision to foist upon themselves; a malady choke full of arrogance, elitism, condescension and malevolence for your fellow man. I cannot suffer the fools who inflict this malady upon themselves.

As for Ms. Pelosi, the point is moot. Whether it had been dementia rather than Progressivism is irrelevant, both maladies should preclude someone from holding public office. Sadly, not only was Ms. Pelosi re-elected as a US Representative in her congressional district, she was re-elected to party leadership in her chamber.

Do you see how Progressivism rots the brain?

Obama’s Policies Rebuffed by Midterm Elections

Tuesday’s election results nationally represent an unmistakable shift to the right. Voters across the country took the president at his word, that his policies were on the ballot last week, and resoundingly rejected them. GOP victories in the Senate, the House, and governorships, served as a denunciation of the policies that have made this the most moribund post-recession economic recovery in history, thwarted by onerous regulation and a steady stream of anti-private sector policies of the administration.

us-midterm-election-results-2014 Exit polls from Tuesday’s midterm election indicated great dissatisfaction with the direction the country is headed. Nearly two-thirds of the 7,563 respondents indicated the country is “Seriously off on the wrong track.” 79% indicated they were worried about the direction of the economy for the coming year, and 70% responded that the economy is either “poor” or “not so good.”

Only a small percentage indicated faith in the federal government. 78% of respondents indicated “only some of the time,” or “never,” when asked, “How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Washington to do what is right?”

Coming into the election, the Democrats controlled the Senate by a 53 to 45 margin, and 2 Independents who caucused with the majority party. Republicans gained seven seats, including Arkansas, Colorado, and North Carolina where Democrat incumbents were defeated, and four seats where Democrat senators retired, including Iowa, West Virginia, South Dakota and Montana. The Alaska race is still undeclared, with the Republican leading, and Louisiana is facing a runoff that will likely result in another gain for the GOP.

2014 Elections Congressional Map

2014 Elections Congressional Map

Outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said, ” The message from voters is clear: They want us to work together.” Apparently Reid has been too detached from public sentiment. The citizens have expected that long before the eve of him losing control of the Senate.

In the House, Republicans held 233 of the 435 seats coming into the election, while Democrats occupied 199. At the end of the day, the GOP had lost two seats, but gained 15, for a net gain of 13 seats. This is the largest majority the GOP has held in the House since 1930. As of this writing, eleven House seats are still undeclared, so the margin could increase even more.

Governor races followed the same trend as the congressional contests. Republicans now hold 31 of the statehouses, and Democrats, 17. Two governor races are still undecided. The most surprising gains occurred in deep blue states, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland. The good news for defeated Governor Pat Quinn, is that he’s one of few recent Illinois governors to leave office not wearing handcuffs.

2014 Gubernatorial Elections

2014 Gubernatorial Elections

The question now is what the Republicans will do with their newfound power. At the federal level, there are limitations to what Congress can accomplish, even controlling both chambers. They don’t have a veto proof majority to override presidential vetoes. And at the state levels, many of the newly elected GOP governors face legislatures controlled by the opposing party, either in one or both chambers. All around, there will be limitations to what can be accomplished.

The greatest source of congressional inaction and gridlock will be displaced when Harry Reid is no longer the Majority Leader with the new Senate. There are currently nearly 300 bills collecting dust on Reid’s desk that have been passed by the House that he has refused to place on the calendar or assign to committee. Many of those bills are uncontroversial, and over 30 of them were sponsored in the House by Democrat members who are as frustrated at Reid’s obstinacy as are Republican members. Several address key areas of concern to veterans.

We may actually get a budget passed as well. The last time that happened was before Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House. The government has been funded by continuing resolutions, temporary stopgap measures, and massive omnibus bills for the past eight years.

Outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

Outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

Senator Mitch McConnell, currently the Minority Leader of the Senate, is presumed to take Reid’s place as Majority Leader. In a post-election press conference this week, McConnell pledged to move forward with the pile of bills Reid left on his desk. He indicated other areas of immediate attention would be the proposed Keystone Pipeline, a full energy bill, comprehensive tax reform including reduction of the corporate tax, and taking up trade agreements to increase American exports.

Regarding Obamacare, he said, “If I had the ability, obviously, I would get rid of it.” But he acknowledged that repeal would not survive a veto from the President, so he vowed to address the oppressive Act “in a variety of different ways.”

By far the biggest beneficiary of the election results are the American people, collectively, as a host of issues of great concern will now be acted upon that will benefit the nation. Gridlock on some issues is still likely, but at least the legislative logjam will now be removed.

Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].

 

President Irritated and Aggressive after humbling loss to opponents

President Obama is unhappy with the results of Tuesday’s election and according to news reports has become “irritated” and “aggressive” much like a hormonal teenager.

November 4th was a day that should live in humility for the President after having his agenda, politics, ideology and strategy all rebuffed by the people of the United States.

This election was not about some failure to interpret data, numbers, or robo-calling messaging – it was a basic referendum on the processes, actions, inactions and cowardice on the part of the President.

Now, Obama is threatening to capitalize the ‘B’ in bully where his agenda is concerned.

What should America expect after rejecting the President’s agenda? More of the President’s agenda unless the newly elected Congressional majority (once placed into power in January) uses the power of the purse to reject his coming executive orders on immigration reform, greenhouse gasses, firearms restrictions and more.

The question America should have for the new GOP majority – do you have the nuts to deal with an even more aggressive President Obama?

Election 2014 Results – GOP Takes Control of the Senate and Increases Seats in House

The last two years have left Americans feeling left out of the economic recovery and frustrated at the general direction of the country. Tonight, we find out if frustration brings about a wave of change. This post will be updated with the most recent updates at the top.

Number of Senate Seats up for Grab in 2014: 36

Current Senate Balance: 

Democrats: 45 seats

Republicans: 52 seats

Current House of Representative Balance:

Democrats: 138 seats

Republicans: 221 seats

Republican Pickups now mean GOP control of the Senate (6 needed currently – GOP +7)

Arkansas – Projected Republican Win (Tom Cotton) GOP +1

Colorado – Projected Republican Win (Cory Gardner) GOP +1

Georgia – Projected Republican Win (David Purdue) Dem +0 (former Sen. Chamblis(R) replaced with another Republican)

Iowa – Projected Republican Win (Joni Ernst) GOP +1

Montana – Projected Republican Win (Steve Daines) GOP +1

North Carolina – Projected Republican Win (Thom Tillis) GOP +1

South Dakota – Projected Republican Win (Mike Rounds) GOP +1

West Virginia – Projected Republican Win (Shelley Moore Capito) GOP +1

Virginia – too close to call: Gillespie(R) down <1 point against Warner(D) with 95% votes in

 

Live Blog (check the comments – and add your own!)

Obamacare forces many to avoid preventative healthcare

President Obama promised huge reductions in premiums and greater access to care. Unfortunately, forcing insurers to create plans with easy payments, unaffordable deductibles terrible networks has had dire consequences.

Fox News reports that the White House pushed for low premiums regardless of the fact that they come with high deductibles, reduced benefits and very few doctors in-network because “most people buy only based on premiums.” That pushes Obamacare recipients into community health organizations and often making choices with expensive or dangerous consequences.

When those on the high-deductible “affordable” plans are told that additional treatment, tests or drugs may be needed to identify or prevent their condition from worsening, they often balk at the preventative measures because those costs would not be paid until they hit the huge deductible that their small premium dictates. Now, the politics of Obamacare have created a medical train-wreck out of someone who previously would have just needed preventative medical attention.

To avoid becoming a medical nightmare, many of these Obamacare enrollees are using community health centers, which offer low cost or free care, to deal with their health issues. So, what did these enrollees get for taking the President’s advice and getting enrolled? They get to go outside the standard healthcare system while still paying into it.

The Demotion of Harry Reid

With but a day left until the Senate likely knows its next makeup, Harry Reid might just be readying himself for a drastic change in job requirements – and America waits with baited breath.

Under Leader Reid’s expert guidance, the Senate has taken on virtually no controversial legislation since Obamacare. Reid has done everything in his power to prevent Democrats from having to vote on contentious issues and has therefore left them looking like patsies for the President – voting with the President’s wishes up to 99% of the time.

Reid has been worrying about campaigning instead of governing for one very good, self-important reason – if he loses too many Senate seats, he loses his leadership position. So instead of working to do the will of the people, Harry has been working to do no harm to Democrat Senators. In the end, that might just cost them – and him – their positions.

Failing to pass a budget compromise since 2009 and doing little else but cower to the President’s demands, the Senate has been the obstacle that America resents. The House has pushed bill after bill to the Senate with Reid preventing anything requiring compromise to hit the Senate floor. It has all been Obama’s way or the highway.

XL pipeline, petroleum exports .. or even .. a BUDGET would have been great. Instead, the Senate has been largely allowed to only vote on approving (or else) the President’s nominees for lower court judge seats or Whitehouse administration positions.

Getting hyper-partisan Harry Reid out of the Senate offers America some hope that Congress will get some bills on to the President’s desk. Perhaps even some that might finally reverse the shrinking percentage of Americans in the workforce. Shrinking paychecks, higher grocery bills and huge jumps in Obamacare health insurance costs will not be missed either.

RE: The US Senate Race in Kansas

“Independent” Greg Orman, who has so many Democrat Party operative working on his campaign one expects to see Nancy Pelosi’s name on his campaign headquarters door, has stated that he will caucus with whatever party presents the best ideas.

Mr. Orman’s campaign website states:

“If Greg is elected, there’s a reasonable chance that neither party would have a majority in the US Senate. If that is the case, he will work with the other independent Senators to caucus with the party that is most willing to face our country’s difficult problems head on and advance our problem-solving, non-partisan agenda.”

Therein lays the problem, and a perfect example of: a) how constitutionally illiterate our political class has become; b) how constitutionally illiterate our citizenry has become; and c) why the 17th Amendment is the most damaging action ever executed by the Progressive Left throughout US history.

When the Progressives of the early 20th Century marshaled through the 17th Amendment, they did a great damage to the symbiotic set of checks and balanced that achieved protections for both the individual and the individual states, where the power of the federal government was concerned. Under the guise of putting more control of government into the hands of the people, the Progressives, under Woodrow Wilson, literally destroyed the check and balance that protected state sovereignty and, through that erosion, the sovereignty of the individual.

At its inception, the US Constitution mandated, in Article I, Section 3, that:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote…”

The appointment of senators by the state legislators thwarted political faction on the floor of the US Senate. With each senator held accountable by their respective state legislatures for their votes, alliances and actions, the onus for political survival for the senatorial class was devotion to the well-being of their home states. The political ideology or factional allegiance of the senator was irrelevant for the most part. If a senator chose political party over the needs of his home state, the state legislature could – and would – simply recall him through an act the State House, replacing the senator with someone who held allegiance to his home state – and the constitution of that home state – above national political faction.

Understanding this original intent that the Framers built into the Constitution, the idea of Obamacare, or suffocating national debt, or an aggressive IRS, EPA or NSA, would never have come to be. The unfunded mandates of Obamacare would have seen the 54 senators from the 27 states that refused to establish ACA health insurance exchanges – and most likely more from states that did – voting against the bill in its infancy because the legislation harms the well-being of the individual states and usurps the authority of most every state’s constitution. So too, the national debt would never have been allowed to accumulate because it passes down to the citizens of individual states. The IRS would be little more than a gaggle of accountants, the EPA would not exist and the NSA wouldn’t be allowed to operate on US soil, if at all.

Simply put, there would be no party politics in the US Senate. It would be an assembly of representatives of each state’s government, tasked specifically and exclusively with the protection of the home state and her constitution. The passage of the 17th Amendment killed that protection and facilitated political faction on a national level to metastasize in the US Senate, something Pres. George Washington warned vehemently about in his Farewell Address.

The 17th Amendment mandates:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote…”

By tricking – and that’s exactly what the Progressives did – the populace into thinking the popular election of their senators gave them more power over government, it literally established the opposite; delivering great power to national political parties and the federal government, while extinguishing an essential check and balance over said political parties and the federal government. The 17th Amendment took power away from the people and the states, and delivered it to the political parties and the federal government.

So, why is the Senatorial Election in Kansas a perfect example of constitutional illiteracy and Progressive manipulation? Would the 17th Amendment have not been passed Mr. Orman wouldn’t need – or aspire – to caucus with any political faction or party. He would, instead, be carrying out the will of the Kansas State Legislature and, through them, the will of the people of his state. There would be no need – or desire – to “caucus” with those of any particular political “flavor” because the well-being of each state is dictated by the needs of each state and her people, not the leaders of any political party.

To wit, imagine that the 17th Amendment had never passed, or that a smart-thinking Congress repealed it. No longer would we see any – any – legislative gridlock; no longer would we amass unrepayable debt; no longer would we see hyper-partisan or ideological pieces of legislation rammed down our throats; no longer would the American people – and her government – be held hostage to politics…no long would the American people be held hostage to politics.

Still think Progressives are on the side of the people? Yeah, neither do I…I haven’t for a very, very long time.

Intelligent Americans Reject Democrat “War on Women” and decide to vote smart

Political polling shows that the American voting public grows increasingly weary of Democrats saying that Republicans oppose mammograms and PAP smears.

Liberal groups funded by commercial abortion operations like Planned Parenthood have been producing dramatic advertisements showing women complaining about Republican candidates who are voting against mammograms and PAP smears – key tools in the detection of women’s health issues. Unfortunately for Democrats, women are smart enough to realize that politicians aren’t banning their health screening or even reducing government funding for mammograms. They’ve just decided that taxpayer money can’t be used to kill babies. If women want to kill their unborn babies, they’ll just have to pay for it themselves. Just wait until those women see what Obamacare has done to their healthcare costs…

Voters are looking at their grocery bills, utility bills and Obamacare bills. Oddly, despite the Democrats assurances, all of those bills have gone up while their pay has not – and one party has ruled the majority of our government for 6+ years.

Why did their salaries stagnate? Probably due to increased competition from a more fluid immigration policy. As more (foreign)  people compete for the same jobs, their is nothing left to cause increased pay pressure.

Democrat policies are the sole cause of stagnant pay, increasing healthcare costs and less-available jobs. Now, they pay the price the rest of us have been bearing under their failed leadership – they may just be out of a job.

The Lightening-Fast Reflexes of the Obama Regime

The Obama Administration’s Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Jeh Johnson, announced October 28th that his agency has raised the security level for federal buildings in the aftermath of last week’s terror attacks in Canada:

“The reasons for this action are self-evident: the continued public calls by terrorist organizations for attacks on the homeland and elsewhere, including against law enforcement and other government officials, and the acts of violence targeted at government personnel and installations in Canada and elsewhere recently,” Johnson said in a statement. “Given world events, prudence dictates a heightened vigilance in the protection of US government installations and our personnel.”

Aren’t you absolutely bowled over by the cat-like reflexes of the Obama Administration? I mean really, we have only seen the fall of every major town in Iraq, sans Baghdad, the engagement of even Islamist countries in the fight against the Islamic State, beheadings and actual declarations of violent intent from the Islamic State and associated Islamist terror groups. We have seen “faceless selfies” of wanna-be jihadis and jihadist sympathizers featuring signs with pro-Islamic State propaganda in front of buildings in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and Washington, DC. And we have seen beheadings on American soil in the name of Islam. Why should we expect any meaningful and/or timely response from an administration that is still trying to figure out if an infectious disease should warrant a quarantine of travelers arriving from infected countries?

Oh sure, the brilliant mind that is Barack Obama doesn’t succumb to the knee-jerk decision, especially where national security and foreign policy are concerned. That’s probably why he is still deliberating the security of the US border in the face of Islamist terrorists who have declared they will bring car bombs and beheadings to US soil; and why he is purposely ignoring the transportation of infectious disease across the border in the form of Enterovirus 68. Titrated to the Obama Administration’s response rate to serious issues facing the American citizenry, he will probably see our border secured after the 27th car bomb goes off in New York (after he chastises politicians there for their kneejerk Islamophobic responses) and after all of the schools in every state on the Southern border are quarantined.

My deference to Mr. Obama’s intelligence, and his ability to react in a timely manner to any crisis, is Obviously mired in sarcasm. Truth be told, I am more inclined to believe that Mr. Obama – whose entire tenure has been an exercise in group-think and governance by committee – is the dullest crayon in the White House box. Do you think for a moment that if he had achieved exemplary grades at Harvard or had penned a groundbreaking essay for the Harvard Review that the Progressive Left wouldn’t have showcased that behind the altar at the Church of Perpetual Obamaisms? No, it is likelier that he was a sub-par student whose falsely elevated self-esteem afforded him the opportunity to be “good at the mouth” and little else.

We all should have known this – or at least the voters on the Left side of the aisle should have known this – prior to his election in 2008, his only accomplishment being the failure of his community organizing efforts at the Altgeld Gardens in Chicago, still a cesspool of poverty, drug dealers, prostitutes and welfare queens to this day.

Of course, to have discerned Mr. Obama as wholly unqualified for the job would have required Liberal voters to actually think for themselves – before they voted, and to possess the integrity to understand and accept that race isn’t a qualification for office – at any level. To have realized the mistake of Obama – preemptively – would have required those on the pretentious side of the aisle to acquiesce to the notion that their ideological mindset just might not be as “fantabulous” as they think they it is.

Sadly, and to the detriment of liberty, personal freedom and representative government, we all know that the likelihood of a Liberal epiphany is next to nil. Liberals, led like clueless lemmings, will continue to fall prey to the emotionally marketed manipulation of their Progressive overlords; overlords who have co-opted their political party; self-centered and opportunistic overlords who have hoodwinked them into the chains of ideological slavery.

NRA Website with Gun-friendly Ratings for 2014 Candidates

As next Tuesday’s mid-term election grows near, many are unsure of their candidate’s position on their right to own firearms for hobbies, hunting and defense.

The NRA has a website that allows voters to see how their local candidates have and likely will vote on gun rights, hunter’s rights and basic American rights issues.

Voters wishing to understand what their candidates stances on gun rights are can go HERE.

For example, here are North Carolina candidates for U.S. Senator Kay Hagan and Thom Tillis’ gun rights ratings.

Kay Hagan is anti-gun

Hillary: Businesses do NOT create jobs [VIDEO]

Hillary Clinton appeared at a Boston, MA rally for gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley and told the accepting crowd that the idea that businesses create jobs is false.

“Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses create jobs,” Clinton remarked.

Perhaps that fall in the hotel room has done more damage than anyone thought. After all, without new and growing businesses, where would the jobs come from – outer space?

Holder As a Supreme Court Justice? It Is Scary and It Is Plausible

With the resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder, unquestionably the most activist – and most divisive – attorney general in the history of the country, everyone seems fixated on who will replace him, and rightly so. The position of nation’s “top cop” is one of extreme importance. As was witnessed with Mr. Holder’s tenure, a biased, activist and agenda-driven attorney general can tear at the fabric of our society. But while everyone seems pre-occupied with who his successor will be, the possibilities of Mr. Holder’s future is what has some forward-thinking people concerned.

If Pres. Obama is swift of feet – and with Valerie Jarrett as his task-master it is hard to believe that he won’t be, he will see his next nominee for US Attorney General fly through the Senate confirmation process. This will happen courtesy of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s manipulation of the confirmation vote process. Susan Ferrechio writes in The Washington Examiner:

“Democrat changes to the filibuster last year should give President Obama’s attorney general pick a gliding path through the Senate in the lame-duck session.

“Last November, Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid changed Senate rules so that nominations for Cabinet positions and most judicial posts needed only 51 votes, instead of the 60 that had been required. That means the person President Obama nominates to succeed Attorney General Eric Holder will not face a potential Republican filibuster.

“Lawmakers plan to return Nov. 12, and no matter who prevails in the Nov. 4 elections, Democrats will remain in the Senate majority until the end of the year. Democrats control 55 votes, while Republicans make up 45 of the chamber’s lawmakers.”

No doubt, We the People will have to suffer through two more years of an activist Department of Justice, one too pre-occupied with “social justice” to give a second thought to “justice for all” or “blind justice.” Of course, it is hard to imagine a more divisive social justice activist than Eric Holder. Nevertheless, I am sure the man – or woman – who takes the helm at the DoJ will provide adequate protection for the Obama Administration, just as Mr. Holder did.

The question now is this. What is Eric Holder going to do? Mr. Holder, as it the case with the total of the Obama Administration sans Joe Biden, is a young man in political terms. His has a long and influential future ahead of him as the first Black activist US Attorney General. My fear is that Mr. Obama may want to reward his political “bag man” with a nomination to the US Supreme Court. And while it is not a sure thing, it is a possibility.

New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait reports that while Progressives wish to see Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retire so that President Obama might seat another Progressive activist on the US Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg is none too fast to agree:

“If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court. [The Senate Republicans] took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court. So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they’re misguided.”

Mr. Chait continues:

“The facts Ginsburg describes are true, but the conclusion she takes away from them is almost certainly wrong…

“It is true that Republicans retain the right to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. They may use this power to restrain the president from nominating a particularly objectionable figure, as both parties have done in the past. But if they use it as a generalized blockade, stopping Obama from nominating any mainstream Democratic figure, then Senate Democrats would almost surely enact another rule change. If Senate Democrats won’t sit still for Republicans using the filibuster to take away Obama’s right to appoint a federal judge, they surely wouldn’t sit still as Republicans prevent Obama from filling a Supreme Court seat…”

To wit, it is not only possible, but plausible that Mr. Obama, at the insistence of Valerie Jarrett and the Chicago Progressive machine, could nominate his trusted social justice foot soldier – before the new Congress is convened – to his just reward as a candidate for the position of United States Supreme Court Justice. All they need to do is to move the arguably less radical Ruth Bader Ginsburg out of the way to usher in Eric Holder, who would unquestionably serve as the most radically ideological justice ever to serve on the court.

So, the ultimate question for those who honor the Constitution is this. What is to be done to defend against this scenario becoming a reality?

One avenue to travel is to execute an all-out assault on every incumbent Senate Democrat running for re-election; an assault that would send the message that should they agree to confirm Mr. Holder as a Supreme Court Justice, extremely well-funded recall campaigns will be launched in the most vicious of manners against each and every one of them.

Another avenue that could be traveled is to take a page out of the Texas Legislature’s Democrat handbook. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell could instruct the total of the Senate Republicans to refuse to return to Washington, DC, after the 2014 Midterm Election in an effort to refuse Mr. Reid a quorum call. Of course, Mr. Reid being the slippery politician that he is might find a way around that.

But one solid avenue would be for Republicans to thoroughly examine the constitutionality of the idea of the impeachment of a United States Supreme Court Justice. Fortunately, there is a wee bit of latitude in the US Constitution for this measure.

Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution states clearly:

“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” (Emphasis mine)

That Mr. Holder was found to be in Contempt of Congress during his tenure as the attorney general, it is fair to say that he exhibited “bad behavior” during that time. In accepting a nomination to the US Supreme Court – and assuming the Reid-led Senate would confirm him, he would be taking the Oath of Office as a US Supreme Court Justice under false pretenses, as his past performance proved beyond doubt that he repeatedly violated the US Constitution by ignoring equal justice under the law for all Americans.

None of these choices are optimal but each presents a possible solution. And each should be considered seriously. An Eric Holder nomination to the US Supreme Court would be a direct threat to the United States Constitution, and one we can ill-afford.

Like Them or Not, They Do Know How to Message

Depending on the programs you watch on television – or the media avenue of your choice, it is hard not to have seen the commercials produced by the National Rifle Association (NRA). They are well crafted and thought provoking. In fact, if they didn’t include the final branding of the NRA in their closes, even the liberal Democrats amongst us would be hard pressed to find anything to object about in their messages. Without a doubt, the NRA knows how to communicate to the average American. So, why hasn’t the Republican National Committee (RNC) learned from the NRA’s effort?

One of the most paralyzing deficiencies of the Republican brand is the fact – the fact – that they couldn’t brand their way out a wet paper bag. Never mind their other short-comings – the combating of the Progressives’ individual targeting of voters with another old, crusty get-out-the-vote effort, or insisting on attacking a core constituency of the GOP in the TEA Party, or failing to reach out effectively to the Libertarians – messaging has, and most likely always will be, the GOP’s Achilles heel. When compared to the Progressive messaging apparatus, or the Democrat spin machine, the RNC comes in a distant fourth, behind the Progressives and Democrats, and trailing the public awareness campaign for the retirement home for blind squirrels. I won’t even get into how they fair against the Islamic State.

But the NRA has struck a chord. They have crafted thirteen segments, each addressing an issue that has become problematic in a nation that is supposed to sanctify opportunity, individualism, justice and liberty. In each, they state facts and make an argument, something inside-the-beltway 30-something “strategists” obviously ignored during “spin class” when they navigated their ways through “establishment Republican school.”

The issues include:

Anger: The rage that is infecting our society
Courage: The unethical, the cowardly and the apathetic
The Golden Rule: The self-serving element of our society
Honest Broker: The culture of deception and spin
Media Dishonesty: The failure of the free press
Mom & Dad: The abandonment of parental responsibility
Money: The tyranny of the oligarchic elite
Neighbor: The demise of the neighborhood
Privacy: The encroachment of government on privacy
Safety: The failure of government to protect its citizenry
Selective Law Enforcement: The Balkanization of our society through legislation
Service: The government’s betrayal of the US military and veterans
Speech: The attack on free speech and thought
Work Ethic: The culture malaise of celebrity worship and sloth

After spending just thirteen short minutes viewing these commercials – these indictments, it is hard not to see that our society has devolved into much less than what was bequeathed to us from just the generation before. We are rife with apathy, egotism, entitlement and falsely elevated self-esteem. We are far from the people our Founders and Framers were (and no that’s not a good thing) and closer to the dependent Socialists that the Progressive Movement quests for us to be. We exist on the precipice of the completion of the fundamental transformation that then-Senator Barack Obama spoke of five days before the 2008 General Election.

And who stands between our demise and our road to recovery? What group stands as champion to the freedoms and liberties left to us by our forefathers; paid for with blood and treasure of free men? The modern day Republican Party, a group of beltway insiders who have no talent – and no desire to obtain or exploit those who possess that talent – for communicating to the citizenry.

For almost two generations now, Progressives and Liberal Democrats have understood the power and the necessity for controlling the narrative. The “spin doctor” the “pundit” and the “strategist,” are all byproducts of a quest to control the narrative; to message effectively with the people. Progressives have known from the days of Woodrow Wilson that messaging that targets peoples’ emotions or the individual’s financial wherewithal – whether it’s to promise “a chicken in every pot” or to fear-monger about war and big business – is not only motivating, it is effective in moving the populace to vote a certain way, especially the non-engaged and no- and low-information demographic. The Republicans, but for a very few bright spots in history, have been dismal at learning this lesson and exist as followers when it comes to innovations in communicating.

Is it too much to wish for that the media gurus of the RNC would exhibit some humility in contacting the marketing firm that produced the NRA’s media campaign so as to gather knowledge on how to affect emotion in their messaging ahead of the 2014 and 2016 elections?

The results of the 2012 General election prove that the RNC media team needs some continuing education in Messaging 101. They should have been out in front of this election cycle with an NRA-styled messaging campaign three months ago. But then, we are talking about a small group of people who turned a potent TEA Party revolution, born of the tenets of the original Republican Charter, into an internal confrontation between a small group of elitist inside-the-beltway oligarchs and the rest of the entire Conservative demographic.

To borrow from the NRA campaign:

“Hey, RNC leadership, we are the 55 million members of the Republican Party. If you’re one of the good guys too, then join us.”

« Older Entries