Category Archives: 2014 Election News

GOP Must Move To the Right For Electoral Success

It is always entertaining to witness the unsolicited counsel pontificated from the left, telling the Republican Party what’s wrong with it. Since many liberals don’t view Republicans as simply different-minded Americans, but as enemies to be vanquished, isn’t that a bit like the U.S. being counseled by Russia? Republicans should be listening rather to the groundswell of grassroots conservatives who see where the country is headed and fear for our future.

125120_600Unlike the querulous ones barking from the left’s sidelines who cheer the current transformation of America, grassroots conservatives are calling for a return to the classical-liberal precepts upon which the nation was built; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not only is the country being fundamentally transformed into something it was never intended to be, but the economic and fiscal tipping points of debt and government intrusion are hastily approaching.

Republicans must disallow the liberals from dictating the premises of public discourse. When they shape public perception based on fallacious premises, the outcome will always to accede to the left. As it is now, rather than questioning whether we should have a deficit at all, it’s, “How much is too much of a deficit?” Rather than all human life is sacred and should be protected, it’s, “How many innocents’ lives are too many to abort?” Instead of government should not be bailing out any businesses, it’s, “How big is too big to fail?” And ultimately, instead of what government should be doing for (or to) us, it should be, “What is the proper role of government in a free republic?”

obama-media-bias-womens-vote-democrats-political-cartoonDemocrats do an excellent job of making promises to niche groups and demographics, and then, more often than not, failing to deliver. But they’re judged by their acolytes not based on results, but on their intent, and their expressed fealty to their objectives.

For example, the “Great Society” has redistributed trillions of dollars over the past five decades, and poverty levels remain, as a percentage of the population, about what they were when the “war on poverty” was declared. Promises to political niches are no more than efforts to buy votes, with someone else’s money. If Republicans want to win elections again, commit to doing what’s best for the country, and all demographic groups, rather than attempting to outbid for their votes, or dissect the electorate based on clichéd parsing of issues or catering to special interest groups. Return to the basic constitutional premise that government is to “promote” the general welfare of the nation, not “provide” it.

In our republic, government was intentionally granted specific, enumerated powers to maintain law and order, ensure our national security, protect life, facilitate interstate commerce, and preserve freedom. Government was never intended to be a panacea or balm for all the ills and travails of society. It was intended to provide a legal structure for the protection of liberty and rights that would allow individuals to get out of life what they were willing to invest personally into it. If Republicans are to succeed as a party, and save the nation from our self-destructive course, they must differentiate from the other side, based on correct constitutional principles, rather than competing to be “Democrat Lite.” Moving to the left will not save the Republican Party or the nation, but moving to the right will.

Question D3 on the bipartisan Battleground Poll conducted by George Washington University provides the evidence. It reads, “When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be… Very conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate, somewhat liberal, very liberal, unsure/refused.” Over the years the poll has been conducted, most Americans self-identify as conservatives. With just a point or two differential over the past ten years, 20% of Americans consider themselves to be very conservative; 40% somewhat conservative; 2% moderate; 27% somewhat liberal, and 9% very liberal; and 3% either didn’t know, or didn’t have a clue what the question even meant. Clearly, 60% of American voters consider themselves to be either very or somewhat conservative. Interestingly, these results were nearly identical in December 2012 after Obama won reelection, validating the obvious, that turnout of voter base is the determinant of electoral outcomes.

healthcarebillIn fact, according to a more recent poll by Harris, self-identified conservatives outnumber liberals in every state in the union, except for Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Republicans would succeed electorally much more if their appeals were based on constitutionally correct principles, and logically sound premises, rather than allowing the left to shape the debate.

Thomas Jefferson, who oxymoronically is heralded as the founder of the Democrat Party, succinctly stated, “A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.” That is not the message promulgated by the party that claims Jefferson as their founder.

If the constitutional and logical premises of “good government” are well articulated and marketed, there should be no election out of reach for conservative candidates. That’s what the data tell us.

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].

 

The Call of the RINO in Virginia and Mississippi

Stop feeding RINOsIt would be a lot easier for conservatives to tolerate the sanctimony of Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) if they weren’t so hypocritical — or in the case of Mississippi RINOs — despicably hypocritical.

‘Moderate’ Republicans never tire of telling us conservative extremists how they are inclusive and ready to reach across the aisle to get things done. While we are exclusive and alienate and people that disagree with us.

Well the Sen. Thad Cochran campaign got things done in Mississippi all right and in the process of building their ‘big tent’ party the RINOs turned race–baiting 180 degrees.

Formerly in Mississippi and other states where Jim Crow was president of the chamber of commerce, unscrupulous white bigots used the threat of black voting, lawlessness, sexual potency, you–name–it to frighten other bigots into voting against the opposition. Typically this was another Democrat that only had one parent in the Klan, as opposed to the baiter who had two.

The lurid overt and covert campaigns wielded scurrilous attacks in the primary because in the South at that time the general election didn’t count. Republicans were as scarce as black members of the Sons of the Confederacy.

This year in a new low for even bottom feeders, the RINOs in the Cochran campaign used race–baiting to scare blacks into voting against Cochran’s conservative white opponent. In the process smearing State Sen. Chris McDaniel with all the mainstream media and leftist TEA Party slanders.

None of it was true, but accuracy was beside the point when crony capitalists, lobbyists and an entitled Senate staff were working to keep their access to the government trough.

The sleazy campaign hired sleazy consultants and then denied involvement with the product. The Cochran group — lead by lobbyist Haley Barbour and his nephew Henry Barbour —denied knowing anything about the content of the robo–calls or radio ads. The nephew told The Daily Caller, “She (a discredited black consultant forced to resign from the mayor of Atlanta’s staff for filing false financial reports) and I talked message for calls, but I never heard them.”

As lies go this isn’t even as good as an Obama lie.

I’ve worked in campaigns for over 30 years and I assure you that when a campaign pays for a product, they approve it before it goes on the air. Heck, campaigns argue about yard signs for days, so you can imagine the discussion around radio advertising.

So at least Barbour knew, but I’m not so sure Cochran did. Coordination between an ‘independent’ expenditure and the campaign is illegal and even if it wasn’t, Thad occasionally has difficulty distinguishing between the days of the week.

The ads specifically warned black voters that McDaniel had a “racist agenda” and that blacks “could lose food stamps, housing assistance, early breakfast, free lunch” and all the other handout programs. The ads concluded with the ominous, “We’ve come this far, we can’t go back now!”

Say to the time when Mississippi was run by white bigots who were Democrats.

This combination of pandering and lying is actually worse than the old–fashioned race baiting, because then, after the election, the race–baiting winner was going to vote the way the bigots wanted. In fact the loser in the primary probably would have voted the way the bigots wanted.

Which lent the practice an air of twisted integrity. But the herd of RINOs, Barbour & Barbour, backing the longtime and frequently out­–of–touch incumbent Cochran will do no such thing. If the primary result stands, Cochran will go back to voting the same way that earned him a zero civil rights rating from the ACLU.

Giving ‘credit’ where ‘credit’ is due, the Cochran victory was remarkable. Typically when a long–time incumbent is forced into a runoff, he loses. Cochran trailed in the first vote by 2,000 votes and then won the runoff by 7,000 votes. The difference being the McDaniel campaign spent the runoff turning out it’s base and the Cochran campaign spent its time turning out Obama’s base.

But there is no guarantee the Cochran ‘victory’ will stand.

Mississippi law says anyone can vote in the Republican runoff as long as they did not vote in the earlier Democrat primary. If they did, those votes are illegal. McDaniel campaign representatives have already begun checking names and claim that thousands of Cochran votes came from voters that had already voted in the Democrat primary.

Meanwhile back in Virginia, those inclusive RINOs in the Cantor organization are busy making sure the Dave Brat campaign won’t have the use of the hundreds of thousands of dollars that until last week were sitting in the 7th District Republican Committee.

Eric Cantor — either ambitious or too–big–for–his–britches, take your choice — had turned the committee into an influence–peddling machine. He raised almost $400,000 for the committee so he could contribute campaign funds to other Virginia candidates and build up a bank of political chits he could call in later.

This money was in addition to any leadership PACs and his own federal campaign account that he used to buy influence with his fellow members of Congress. Of course a funny thing happened to Cantor on the way to being Speaker of the House or governor of Virginia.

He lost a primary to Dave Brat. So instead of healing the wounds and uniting for victory in November, Cantor had his lackeys on the committee give the money away in a breath–taking display of spite and poor losership.

Brat’s plan initially was to use a bit over half of the money for a grassroots get–out–the–vote effort with a dozen staffers who would supervise telephone call centers and a direct mail campaign.

Instead the RINOs charged in and gave $150,000 to the Republican National Committee, $150,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee, $5,000 to Ed Gillespie’s campaign for US Senate, $25,000 to a GOP state senate candidate and $13,000 to the VA GOP. And oh yes, they left a $10 gift card to Ace Hardware in the deposit box so Brat could buy a bucket to soak his head.

Once the deed was done, the lying could begin.

Cantor’s consultant assured the media the best way to insure the money will come back to the 7th district is to send it off to Washington, as opposed to leaving the money in the local bank account where is already was. Possibly he thought the money would gain momentum as it traveled through the banking system and return to Virginia with the impact of an asteroid.

But I’ll tell you what will happen. Most of the money will go anywhere but Virginia. These committees are run by 24–year–old masters of the universe that let polling do their thinking. Brat’s seat is a safe seat, so he won’t get a dime. The money will go to other House races in other states.

If Gillespie polls well, he could get some of the 150K back, minus a few miscellaneous handling fees, but that’s a big if. What is not in doubt is that Dave Brat won’t have a GOTV operation unless he raises the money for it himself.

So who are the fanatics now? The TEA party–backed candidates who worked hard and turned out conservatives or the RINOs who use sleaze and spite to get their way?

Only Obama Staffers Believe IRS ‘Lost’ Email

IRS-emails4-copyIf you’ve been skeptical about the IRS’ explanation that Lois Lerner’s email disappeared during a World of Warcraft online game that got out of control, I have good news. Particularly since you’ve also probably been a little reluctant to express that thought. No one wants to be called a racist in the latte line at Starbucks while you–know–who is in the White House.

But you are not alone. Barbara Boland of CNS News reports that an overwhelming 76 percent of the American public does not believe the email was “lost” and rumors have it Jay Carney’s support is slipping, too. This means IRS deniers aren’t bigots after all! Since only 63 percent of the total US population is white, that means 13 percent of the minority population is included among the hard drive crash skeptics. Even the trends are looking bad for Barack ‘What? Me Worry?’ Obama. In April only 7 percent of the public believed that Congress should continue investigating “until someone is held accountable.” Now that figure is at 74 percent.

Disbelief was so pervasive among poll respondents that only people who swallowed the IRS story were over 65–years–old and still using a rotary phone.

Even 63 percent of Democrats believe the potentially incriminating messages were “deliberately destroyed,” but of course they have not received any contributions from IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. Boland — who has been all over this part of the story, too — found that Koskinen gave a $5,000.00 donation to re–elect Obama in 2012 and a total of $19,000 to the Democratic National Committee from 1988 to 2008. He’s also contributed to every Democratic presidential nominee since 1980. And he even gave $3,800.00 to Hillary ‘What difference does it make’ Clinton.

I won’t bore you with pointing out that a Republican in similar circumstances would be asked to recuse himself from anything concerned with the investigation. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D–MD) was so honored by the IRS commissioner’s appearance before the House committee investigating the IRS scandal that he almost pre–paid his taxes right there. Sounding like the master of ceremonies at a Kim Jong–un birthday party, Cummings gushed, “I want to thank you for being who you are. I want to thank you for giving a damn and caring about our country.”

What Koskinen is, is an arrogant, long–time laborer in the Democrat vineyard who is offended that Republicans won’t take his word for it that email on Lois Lerner and six of her henchmen’s computers suddenly came down with a bad case of digital flu that wiped out the messages. The fact that this is exactly what your ex–wife says about your email requesting a week’s grace period on the child support check is just a coincidence. It’s simply chance that time period involved in the elusive email is the exact same time period the House has subpoenaed.

Just because grandma has her data backed up on the cloud — she calls it “heaven” just for laughs — doesn’t mean a giant organization like the IRS with an annual budget of $11.2 billion has to follow even an elementary data preservation protocol.

Although the Senate appears content to sleep through this data disaster, there could be repercussions among the public. Losing information certainly does nothing to create confidence in the IRS E–File program that uses the Internet to file tax returns and make payments.

What if tax collections fall a bit short and the commissioner decides to double dip and tell you there is no record of your payment? It makes me suspicious that maybe the reason for IRS audits is not because the bureau thinks you are cheating on your taxes, it’s because they lost your tax information and are hoping you kept the records. Any revenue the auditor can gouge out during the process is a bonus.

Of course if the situation were reversed, what are the chances the IRS would accept an explanation like this from a taxpayer? You know the answer is less than zero. Lack of data would be just the same as pleading guilty, with fines and imprisonment to follow.

For that matter Koskinen’s excuse is even worse than the “I only had two beers, officer” that the drunk always gives during a DUI stop right before he participates in a field sobriety test.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R–SC) is a former prosecutor and he has had it with Koskinen’s arrogance. Last Monday he lit into the commissioner’s glib assurances that the IRS was a paragon of probity.

“You have already said multiple times today that there was no evidence that you found of any criminal wrongdoing,” Gowdy remarked. “I want you to tell me what criminal statutes you’ve evaluated.”

“I have not looked at any,” Koskinen replied.

“Well then how can you possibly tell our fellow citizens that there’s not criminal wrongdoing if you don’t even know what statutes to look at?” Gowdy shot back.

No doubt Koskinen is surprised at Gowdy’s lack of confidence in his assurances. The mainstream media treats him like the Oracle at Delphi, but this backwoods hick with the aggressive hair is attacking him in public!

Meanwhile back at the White House, it’s interesting how Obama continues to deploy the Will Roger’s Defense — All I know is what I read in the newspapers — with a straight face every time his administration demonstrates its incompetence. Why didn’t George Bush think of that during Katrina, the US Attorney firings or Iraq?

Still, I do wonder what Obama does during his daily briefings. Surely he must get tired of playing computer solitaire occasionally and look up to ask a question. During the 30 months and counting remaining of his second term, I hope no low level minion ever forgets to pay the New York Times subscription.

Otherwise Obama will have to rely on his golfing buddies to keep him abreast of current events.

Eric Cantor Picked the Wrong Base

Speaker John Boehner is among those mystified by Eric Cantor's loss.

Speaker John Boehner is among those mystified by Eric Cantor’s loss.

It’s no mystery why Eric Cantor lost his primary last Tuesday. He simply failed to turn out his new Hispanic base. And Cantor is not completely to blame for this failure, because events outside his control were also working against him.

On the day of the vote many members of his new voting block, Futuro Ciudadnos for Cantor couldn’t votar because they were waiting outside the local bus stations and airports to be reunited with younger members of their extended family. It’s really a shame Cantor lost because footage of these tearful reunions would have made great feel–good television spots in November, as long as the crew made sure no weeping taxpayers could be seen in the back of the frame.

[CULTURAL SENSITIVITY NOTE REGARDING OUR NEW NEIGHBORS: When Gringos send their unaccompanied minors to visit the ex, they complicate the process with needless rules and bureaucracy. On United Airlines — my carrier of choice — parents pay a fee of $150 each way for an unaccompanied minor, on top of what the airfare cost. The parent or guardian is required to arrive early at the airport, with photo identification and contact information and the same info regarding the person meeting little Belgium at his destination.

The child gets an I.D. badge and experiences the tender mercies of the TSA, which may include being felt up. When boarding the plane, flight attendants greet him personally, escort him to his seat and buckle him in. At the destination a United employee meets your child and escorts him to the arrivals area where the identification of the ex is checked closely to make sure there is an exact match with the data supplied before the child boarded.

Once the paperwork is complete, Belgium is handed over.

Futuro cuidadnos in need of an anchor adolescent have a much simpler system. First of all it’s a one-way trip. Jesusito — who can be a son, cousin, uncle, nephew, foster child, drinking buddy or fellow gang member — is tossed on the nearest autobus heading for El Norte. His documentation, if any, consists of tattoos and a handwritten note listing the town where his ‘relatives’ are living in the shadows doing the work US business won’t pay citizens enough to do.

Once he arrives at the border he wades, rides, walks, sneaks, jumps or runs across. If he’s not lucky enough to be captured immediately by the Border Patrol, Jesusito must track one down and inform the CBP officer of his rights and what services the officer needs to provide to avoid a UN investigation.

On the United flight the unaccompanied minor gets a bag of pretzels.

At INS Daycare Jesusito gets food, a bed, his diaper changed (only if necessary), a shower, entertainment, visits from befuddled Members of Congress and transportation that will reunite him with the family whose deportation he will prevent in the future. And it’s all free! Well, free for Jesusito since the taxpayers are footing the bill.]

So it’s no wonder Cantor lost with that kind of distraction affecting his base. Of course there is no guarantee Eric would have won even without the interference of the infant invasion. His new amigos aren’t known for displays of gratitude, in fact amnesty advocates invaded Cantor’s ‘Victory Celebration’ after he lost demanding legislation he was in no position to pass after the polls closed.

Now that he’s no longer a political factor the rumors of how hard it was to work with Cantor’s arrogant staff start to surface. This is plausible. Cantor was House Majority Leader, so he gets funding for two sets of staff members: The Congressional staff and the majority leader’s staff. I used to work for a majority leader and in DC this officer holder is not a mere congressman or representative. People address him as ‘leader’ and do so with a straight face. It’s like ruling in your own private North Korea without the really bad hair and mass starvation.

You can imagine what a shock it must have been to go back to the district were voters not only didn’t call him ‘leader,’ they asked impertinent questions and wanted college recommendations for their kids.

The same goes for the staff. In DC everyone treads lightly around these pencil necks because they have Cantor’s ear and can make your political life miserable. But they, too get no respect when some rube from Virginia calls wondering where her Social Security check is and why her son can’t get full disability after that unfortunate explosion in the meth lab.

The only portion of Cantor’s new base that came through for him was the big business money that allowed him to outspend opponent Dave Brat by 25–to–1.

Which reminds me: How many of you took my excellent advice shared here and contributed to Brat’s campaign BEFORE he won? I feel like one of those guys that bought Apple stock before Steve started using deodorant and came back to save the company.

Cantor is another one of those too–clever–by–half politicians that outgrew their voters and made the fatal mistake of letting the voters know it. His focus–group tested language and his amnesty triangulation — conservative enough to confuse the district, but not so much that the US Chamber of Commerce, agriculture lobbyists and HB–1 visa proponents would shut off the money spigot — had one fatal flaw. Clinton, the inventor of triangulation, did his in the general election, not the primary.

Brat’s campaign and his fund raising just got him over the threshold of credibility and angry voters did the rest. But Brat should take care that Cantor’s defeat doesn’t go to his head. When an incumbent loses the vast majority of voters don’t vote for the winner, they vote against the incumbent. Brat just happened to reap the whirlwind.

He must still continue to make the case for his ideas and build strong ties with the district before November.

In the meantime conservatives can enjoy watching the amnesty lobby explain how illegal immigration had absolutely nothing to do with Cantor’s loss. In fact, if Cantor had only come out stronger for amnesty and Chipotle has closed early on the day of the primary, he would still be the Congressman.

It’s like trying to explain that Noah’s flood didn’t wipe out the earth’s population. The root cause was lack of oxygen and no Corps of Engineers.

Eh! Who Cares About the Rules?

Have we as a nation – and more precisely, we are Conservatives, Constitutionalists, Libertarians and Republicans – completely given up on playing by the rules? That would seem to be the case, at least in the instance of election law in the State of Michigan.

The Michigan Secretary of State, Ruth Johnson, a Republican, has abdicated her responsibility to enforce election law for the most basic of issues: how someone qualifies for being included on an election ballot.

The Hill reports:

“Michigan won’t appeal a federal judge’s ruling that placed Rep. John Conyers (P-MI) on the Democrat ballot, ending the threat that he would have to run a write-in campaign.

“The office of Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, a Republican, announced the decision on Friday to let the judge’s ruling stand.

“Conyers had originally been ruled ineligible to appear on the ballot for the August primary because local officials found he didn’t submit enough valid petition signatures.

“A US district court judge last week, though, overturned that decision, finding it unconstitutional, and issued an order directing the local election commission to place the longtime lawmaker’s name back on the ballot.”

Let’s overlook, for the moment, that fundamental election law is supposed to be – supposed to be – reserved for the States. While the US Constitution prescribes basic qualifications of an individual to participate in a federal election, State legislatures regulate the eligibility of an individual for voting and to regulate the qualifications for a candidate appearing on a ballot paper. Ergo, the federal judiciary has unconstitutionally overstepped its authority in intervening in this case.

If the Secretary of State – a position directly elected by the voters of any given State – is charged with the responsibility to faithfully execute election law, in the case of Ms. Johnson, the option to abdicate responsibility to follow the letter of the law does not exist. By not executing an appeal of the federal judge’s unconstitutional ruling she both violates her oath of office to faithfully execute her duties as Secretary of State, but she also betrays the constitutional rights of her State’s citizenry by surrendering the State mandated rights of Michiganians.

A citizen versed in the threat of Progressivism would point out that one of the primary goals of the Progressive movement is to centralize government at the federal level, moving the authority of government away from elected representation and toward an ever-expanding federal bureaucracy. Ms. Johnson, by skirting her responsibility to defend her State’s authority to render election law, has aided the Progressive cause in Mr. Conyers’ inclusion on the Michigan ballot when he had not satisfied the requirements to be included.

As the mainstream media continues to manifest a false narrative about a “rift” within the Republican Party, the fact of the matter is this. Those who call themselves Conservatives, Constitutionalists and TEA Partiers (and by the way, TEA is capitalized because it is an acronym for Taxed Enough Already) are standing against those “go along to get along” Republicans who consistently betray the core tenets of the Republican Party, chief among them the common understanding that the United States of America – as so eloquently stated by John Adams – is “a nation of laws, not men.” To wit, there is no “rift.” True Republicans are trying to purge Progressives from their ranks, especially in positions of leadership.

This understood, hasn’t Ms. Johnson proved herself a Progressive in the Republican Ranks? One has to ask, what gives Ms. Johnson the authority to pick and choose what laws she follows and what laws she doesn’t? An action such as this is something the Obama Administration engages in…and that, constitutionally speaking and in a land of laws and not men, is both unAmerican and illegal.

Aiken: Exactly What We Don’t Need In Politics

Perhaps when our time is relegated to the history books it will be remembered as the “Era of Self-Important Divisiveness,” or something to that effect. Truth be told, there have been few times in the history of our nation when politics was so basely divisive. I say basely because although politics in the time of our Founders and Framers was combative, it was so on an intellectual level; a battlefield of higher thinking, as it were. Today, our politics is centered on the self-important stature of those whose only claim to narcissism is the falsely elevated self-esteem foisted upon them by the Progressive operatives who have commandeered the education system.

Today, our society lauds the illiterate rap artist and the talentless faux-beauties of Hollywood; thugs with a cursory grasp of rhythm but not music, and surgically enhanced spotlight seekers completely devoid of talent. Today, our culture’s media places more importance in the political opinions of an American Idol runner-up, than those who served in government during an era when the Iron Curtain fell and the Soviet Union disappeared from the maps of the world.

So, it is no surprise that our narrative-controlling media (or at least that’s what they strive for) would be wasting the precious “attention span time” of the non-engaged and no- and low-information American public with the candidacy of Clay Aiken, nominee in the North Carolina 2nd congressional district election. Not to take anything away from Mr. Aiken’s musical talents (he is a talented singer), but to quote a superior musician, Frank Zappa, “There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.”

The Washington Times is reporting:

“Democrat congressional candidate Clay Aiken has reportedly deleted a tweet in which he fantasized about punching conservative author Ann Coulter ‘in the face.’

“‘Anyone else watching @piersmorgan want to punch Ann Coulter in the face?’ the former American Idol runner-up tweeted in October 2012…

“Mr. Aiken won the North Carolina Democrat nomination last week with a lead of less than 400 votes, just one day after his main contender, Keith Crisco, was found dead in his home.”

For a moment let’s skip the embarrassing fact that Mr. Aiken only beat a dead guy by 400 votes. One has to wonder if he would have lost if he were on the ballot in Chicago, what with all the dead people who vote there.

I could ask a question here. Is this the type of person that Democrats want to have representing them in Congress; a person who advocates for violence against those with whom he disagrees, even as he preaches acceptance and tolerance for “protected” demographics in our society? But the answer here is one we already understand: purporting inclusion and non-violence while advocating for the beating of those with which you disagree is okay if you are a Progressive. It is a hate crime if you are anything but.

Mr. Aiken didn’t stop there, either. In referencing Ms. Coulter a second time, he tweeted:

“Since Ann Coulter says it’s ok 2 b offensive when describing people, let’s ‘C’ what words we can use 2 describe her huff.to/P8moE7”

An obvious reference to a word that gets guys slapped squarely across the face when heard by females.

Caustic indignation has become the “new normal” for the Progressive Left. They have always used the tactics of “divide and conquer” and “slash and burn” in their politics, but in the days past they did it with much more subtlety, preferring the artful spin of an issue (the issuance of disinformation and manipulative propaganda) to the overt brutality of arrogant and belligerent calls for violence, whether under the banner of the “rainbow flag” or not. Today’s Progressive activists – and, evidently, congressional candidates – seem to have no problem advocating for violence against those with whom they disagree; advocating for the denial of free speech rights for those who do not obediently follow their shallow vision of what a diverse society should be.

Our nation’s motto is E Pluribus Unum: “Out of Many, One.” In this simple statement we can understand what the United States of America was supposed to be…and what it is not today. Our nation was supposed to be a nation that embraced the differences in all the peoples who wanted to shed their labels and become Americans, simply Americans; not hyphenated Americans or protected Americans, just Americans. In the vision of e pluribus unum, our nation would see no differences among its citizenry based on color, economic wherewithal, religion, gender or profession; it would only see a melting pot of people who came to this land to be free.

Our nation was designed to be a safe haven for all people, a safe haven from the oligarchs and the despots, the totalitarians, dictators and fascists; a safe haven where people could worship freely, freely express their beliefs (both societal and political), and have the freedom to pursue happiness, both in spirit and in commerce. Today, we have transformed from a Representative Constitutional Republic to a nation governed by an elitist oligarchy, hell-bent on attaining and then retaining power, influence and riches derived from We the People. And We the People, for our apathy, for our self-importance, for our stupidity, have brought it upon ourselves for our abdication of responsibility to protect the Charters of Freedom; for our abdication of responsibility to hold those elected to office accountable for their malfeasance and treachery.

We have true scandals facing our nation today, scandals that, in the long run, will be found to be criminal and actionable in nature, yet our media decides Clay Aiken’s “sissy-fit” with Anne Coulter is news. Then, what can we expect from a mainstream media where one network president, CNN’s Jeff Zucker, said,

“We’re not going to be shamed into [covering the Benghazi scandal] by others who have political beliefs that want to try to have temper tantrums to shame other news organizations into covering something.”

Is the assassination of a US ambassador and his security team by an enemy aligned with the group that slaughtered 2,975 people on September 11, 2001 not worth covering; not worth examining until all the questions are answered? Should we be satisfied with the determinations and findings of a “stacked-deck” investigative panel more concerned with political vanity than truth?

We the People are less concerned about how Mr. Aiken is, well, “just all tied up in little pretty knots” about Ann Coulter’s comments, and much more concerned that half of our government doesn’t care that:

▪ an act of war was perpetrated on an American ambassador and his security team in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, and our President, his administration and his party’s congressional contingent overtly seek to cover-up Executive Branch complicity;

▪ the IRS was illegally targeting political advocacy groups that represented easily half of the electorate’s political views;

▪ the Veteran’s Administration has been cooking the books for the sole purpose of gleaning taxpayer-funded “bonus money” from the Treasury while veterans died – and lay dying – waiting for basic treatment;

▪ the Department of Justice – run by an overt racist – not only spied on journalists in order to intimidate the First Amendment protections of the press, but has routinely refused to enforce laws based on politics and racism;

▪ the singular “achievement” of this administration – the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare (and you thought I was going to say the fundamental transformation of the United States of America) – is robbing our citizens of jobs, even as the administration’s penchant for acquiescing to global governance literally extracts massive amounts of wealth from our shores.

But then, Progressives are in control of the mainstream media and the news narratives; narratives sympatico with those on Pennsylvania Avenue who are more concerned about the “fundamental transformation of America,” than with doing the jobs for which they were elected. That said, is it any wonder Mr. Obama always finds out about what his administration is doing from the “news media reports”?

Going back to Frank Zappa for a moment, a very talented musician in my book,

“I believe that, in a [constitutional republic], government exists because (and only as long as) individual citizens give it a ‘temporary license to exist’ – in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a [constitutional republic] you own the government – it doesn’t own you. Along with this comes a responsibility to ensure that individual actions, in the pursuit of a personal destiny, do not threaten the well-being of others while the ‘pursuit’ is in progress.”

Maybe it’s time for Mr. Aiken to take some private lessons in government, philosophy and civility. Too bad Mr. Zappa isn’t available.

The Benghazi Memo Points to a Crime

The newly dislodged memo from the Obama White House is effectively the smoking gun proving that President Obama’s handlers sought to deceive the American electorate in the run-up to the 2012 General Election on the issue of Benghazi. Even the refined spin and disinformation skills of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney weren’t enough to “play in Peoria”; the White House Press Corps audibly giggling at his insistence that the issue is a Republican conspiracy theory focused on “talking points.” That the Obama Administration has no problem lying to the American people in the pursuit of its agenda should be troubling enough, but now we have the issue of their complicity in covering-up the deaths – the murders – of four Americans. Anyone else executing the same rhetorical maneuvers would be charged with obstruction of justice, perjury and accessory to murder.

The memo, dated September 14, 2012 – now being referred to as the “smoking gun” memo – shows that then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes not only notified political operatives David Plouffe and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (among others), on the email, but that all involved knowingly launched a disinformation campaign about the cause of the Benghazi attacks. In the memo Rhodes writes:

Subject: RE: Prep Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET

Goals:

▪ To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad;

▪ To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy;

▪ To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to justice, and standing steadfast through these protests;

▪ To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.

The rest is recent history.

Forget for a moment that points one, two and three are absolute and bald-faced lies, rooted in the slash-and-burn political tactic of “say anything to get elected” Progressive politics, and that point four is the stuff of a political campaign memo and not a national security memo meant to inform the American people about the assassination of a United States Ambassador and his security contingent; an act of war. Forget all that for a moment.

What is of note here is: the date of the memo; who was included in the memo; and the fact that the instructions of this memo were carried out over 12 hours later.

That the date of the memo preceded now-UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s Sunday talk show circuit appearances proves that the effort was, in fact, a disinformation campaign. That then-White House Senior Advisor and political strategist David Plouffe, and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney were included in the email proves that there was an illegal coordination between the political and operational offices of the Obama White House. And since the actual deception was executed, just prior to a General Election where there was no clear front-runner, proves that everyone with any weight in the Obama White house – including David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and President Obama himself – signed off on the execution of this disinformation campaign.

These three points clear, it would, to borrow a phrase from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, require a “willing suspension of disbelief” to believe that the erroneous information championed by the White House in the early days after the Benghazi attacks was both as fully informed as it could have been and not politically calculated. In other words, you would need to have the I.Q. of a fig to believe what is currently being shopped by Jay Carney.

The only conclusion possible for any thinking person is that the Obama Administration got caught with its pants down on the issue of al Qaeda-related terrorism by way of the assassination of a US ambassador and his security detail in Banghazi on September 11, 2012, and that in order to support its re-election political narrative – that al Qaeda was “on the run” – they knowingly and willfully lied to the American people. Again, the President of the United States and his handlers willingly lied about the murders of a US diplomat and three security personnel for political purposes.

A side note. The word “murder,” by definition, means:

1. Noun – Law. The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law…

5. Verb – Law. To kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

On August 9, 1974, facing the prospect of impeachment, President Richard M. Nixon, resigned the presidency of the United States of America. His “high crime and misdemeanor”: His knowledge and suspected complicity in a cover-up of a politically motivated crime that took place at the Watergate. The History Channel sums it up thusly:

“Early in the morning of June 17, 1972, several burglars were arrested inside the office of the Democratic National Committee, located in the Watergate building in Washington, DC. This was no ordinary robbery: The prowlers were connected to President Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign, and they had been caught while attempting to wiretap phones and steal secret documents. While historians are not sure whether Nixon knew about the Watergate espionage operation before it happened, he took steps to cover it up afterwards, raising ‘hush money’ for the burglars, trying to stop the Federal Bureau of Investigation from investigating the crime, destroying evidence and firing uncooperative staff members. In August 1974, after his role in the Watergate conspiracy had finally come to light, the president resigned. His successor, Gerald Ford, immediately pardoned Nixon for all the crimes he ‘committed or may have committed’ while in office. Although Nixon was never prosecuted, the Watergate scandal changed American politics forever, leading many Americans to question their leadership and think more critically about the presidency.”

Of note, the burglars at the Watergate were seeking to facilitate the gathering of information that would give Nixon’s Committee to Re-Elect the President (known derisively as CREEP), an advantage over Democrat nominee George McGovern.

I bring up Watergate in the context of the Benghazi attacks for several specific reasons.

What Did Mr. Obama (and His Principles) Know and When Did He Know It
Just as in Watergate, there are legitimate questions as to when Mr. Obama knew: a) that the attack even occurred; b) that the attack had taken the life of a US ambassador (an act of war); c) that an al Qaeda associated group was responsible for premeditating the attacks; d) that operatives within the CIA, State Department and Pentagon with knowledge of the attacks knew from the first moments that it was a terrorist attack; and e) that approval was given by senior White House staff to deceive the American electorate to shield the President’s reelection bid.

Both Events Resulted in Crimes
Aside from the fact that – both morally and ethically – the Obama State Department was guilty of ignoring critical security assessments for the Benghazi compound calling for tighter and upgraded security before the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks, three specific crimes have striking parallels when Watergate and Benghazi are examined honestly.

Obstruction of Justice
Obstruction of Justice is usually a term used when a criminal or collaborator tries to thwart the investigation of a criminal act. In Watergate, the Nixon White House sought to withhold, destroy, alter and otherwise conceal evidence of wrong-doing from the FBI. With regard to the Obama White House’s response to the Benghazi attacks there was a carefully concerted effort to not only withhold, alter and otherwise conceal evidence of a crime – the murders of four Americans – from an investigative committee of the US House of Representatives, that effort extended to the dissemination of a false narrative – a lie – about the murderous events to the American people in an effort to win an election. Both acts of obstruction of justice – in Watergate and in Benghazi – were executed strictly and exclusively for political purposes.

Accessory to Murder
An accessory charge centers on “a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal.” This charge applies to a plethora of illegal actions, including murder. It is indisputable that US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Specialist Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, were “murdered” (see the definition of murder provided above). As a point of order, the Obama Administration, by its own declarations, see the application of justice where terrorism is concerned as a “law enforcement issue,” so much so that the Holder Justice Department has sought to try 9/11 suspects in United States courts. That understood – and by their definition – they have implicated themselves via the purposeful cover-up, for political purposes, in four murders.

Perjury
Perjury is the “willful act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.” In the Watergate scandal, the Articles of Impeachment consist of three articles: “Obstruction of Justice,” “Abuse of Power,” and “Contempt of Congress.” All three of these articles alleged the act of perjury, whether to an empowered investigator or to congressional committees. All three of these “charges” would be applicable to the actions of some of the most senior members of the Obama Administration, including, Mr. Obama himself, regarding the Benghazi attacks.

In all of these comparisons, the parallels are legitimate. Senior members of the Obama White House – if not the President himself – are, with the advent of the Rhodes memo, implicated in obstruction of justice, accessory to murder and perjury. The only thing that separates Watergate from Benghazi is this: no one died in the total of the Watergate event. Four Americans did die in the Benghazi event; an event tantamount to an act of war; an event diminished and manipulated for political purposes.

I have always asked Mr. Obama’s detractors to “dial back” on the more intense charges against the man; charges that often served the Progressive disinformation and smear machines in maligning honest Constitution-loving Americans. Instead, I begged them, please stick to his policies and actions, because, just like his brethren Progressives of yesteryear, if we allow his actions and policies to play out, eventually he will weave enough rope with which he (or they) will eventually hang himself.

Mr. Obama’s Progressive, oligarchic, elitist, political greed has woven that rope. And no, this is not about the color of his skin. It’s all about the “color” of his politics.

“ARTICLE 1

“In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

“On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

“The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following…”

– Articles of Impeachment adopted by House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974

Dem Lobbyist: GOP Will Control House and Senate in Mid-Term Elections

WASHINGTONApril 24, 2014 /PRNewswire-iReach/ — APRIL 24, 2014-WASHINGTON, DC—The Republican majority in the House will rise to its largest margin in history and the Senate will transfer from Democratic control to Republican come the November mid-term elections, says Neil Dhillon, a Democratic lobbyist and former senior congressional aide.  It’s inevitable with the President’s approval rating at a record low 37% plus the traditional gains for a President’s opposing party in mid-terms that it will be an historic night for Republicans in November.

Even with 6 months out it’s an easy call to make now, says Dhillon.  There’s an added clincher that a large population of newly registered Republican voters are Asian and Hispanics and that will further propel the Republicans in November.   The President’s pressure on Congress on Immigration Reform, Energy Dependence, Federal Deficit, and Health Care will continue to determine whether his approval rating will rise or lower over the next few months.

The only good news for Democrats is that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) raised close to $3 million more than Republicans in the last quarterly report.  The Democrats will need to raise at least $20 million more each quarter to have any chance of forgoing full Republican control.  And that is a tough road to climb.

The Senate presently has 53 Democrats, 45 Republicans and two Independents.  The Republicans need a net gain of 6 seats out of 36 Senate races with Democrats fighting to retain 21 seats that include 6 races in states that Governor Mitt Romney won big in 2012.   President Obama should do everything he can do now to forge some type of relations with the Senate Republicans to help ease the pain of his final two years in office.  This will not be an easy task as the President and Congress barely talk as it is.

The House presently has 233 Republicans, 199 Democrats, and 3 open seats. Historically, the President’s opposing party makes big gains in mid-terms election plus the President’s approval rating is a low 37%.  It appears that the Republicans will gain close to 10 seats and get over a 242 seat majority.  If this occurs, this would the largest majority ever by Republicans.  Republicans held a 239 seat majority in 1949 and a 242 seat majority in 2010.

An Oligarchy and Not a Republic? No Kidding?

The Washington Times is reporting that a study by Princeton and Northwestern Universities has determined that the fundamental transformation of the United States of America has already taken place. We have transitioned from a Republic (as our Framers intended) to an oligarchy:

“America is no longer a democracy — never mind the democratic-republic envision by Founding Fathers. Rather, it’s taken a turn down elitist lane and become a country led by a small dominant class comprised of powerful members who exert total control over the general population — an oligarchy, said a new study jointly conducted by Princeton and Northwestern universities.

“One concluding finding in the study: The US government now represents the rich and powerful, not the average citizen, United Press International reported…

“Researchers then concluded that US policies are formed more by special interest groups, than by politicians properly representing the will of the general people, including the lower-income class, UPI said.”

Really? Who would ever have thought?! Oh, that’s right, we “whackoids” and “domestic terrorists” among us; those warning about the encroachment of dominant government into our private lives. We have been (first politely and now with a twinge of anger) voicing this ongoing event for quite a while, first as individuals and now in organized groups.

This is what happens when Progressives capture the message-crafting media. This is what happens when we pass amendments to the US Constitution that destroy the protections built in for the individual States. This is what happens when factions and big money special interest groups reign supreme in Washington, DC. This is what happens when the no- and low-information voters decide elections; our country’s well-being hanging in the balance.

Whether or not it is too late to change anything is a matter of debate. Personally, I am inclined to fight for the country and the capitalist economic system that literally created the first Middle Class ever to exist in the history of man.

To that end, there is an organization that has developed a solution – or at least the vehicle to achieve a solution – for the manipulation of the no- and low-information voters by the special interests and political opportunists currently transforming our Republic; the oligarchs, if you will.

Founders Alliance USA*, a non-partisan group, has developed VoterFYI.

The VoterFYI initiative is for voters (and no- and low-information voters are included here) who are dissatisfied with the current political system and parties. The initiative matches voters to the strongest candidate on any given ballot, whose positions are compatible with the voters’ highest values using machine intelligence. Unlike the position paper model of think tanks, the VoterFYI process is more personalized by leveraging advances in social technology and artificial intelligence to match voters to their candidate, make recommendations on issues based on the data that is input, and save precious time.

Part of the pain of transitioning from the most promising form of government (the American constitutional Republic) to the failed tenets of oligarchical Socialism is the destruction of prosperity; the equalization of society by the denial of opportunity.

There has been very little economic growth for the last five years. The “recovery summer” has come and gone with the worst recovery ever recorded. In 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs. Today, less than 65 percent of men do. Because they’re feeling acute pain monetarily, the sleeping giant that is “we the people” are waking up to the disparity and recognizing the incompetence of both political parties. It is at this point that Progressives and oligarchic elites intend to swoop in with an expansion of the entitlement state; the nanny state, where government advances to control even more of our lives than it already does.

The brilliance of the VoterFYI project comes in its ability to elevate the issues above the political parties and above the misinformation and deception of the terminal power-seekers. It allows each individual to formulate and refine their understanding of the issues, thus circumventing the Madison Avenue political rhetoric that only well-connected money can buy. Once the populace understands the issues – and how they, themselves, feel about the issues – no intentionally contrived message of spin by either established political camp can deceive the voters any longer…and this includes the no- and low-information voters.

Find out more about VoterFYI by clicking here.

I don’t know about you, but I am unwilling to stand by, doing nothing more than complaining, as Progressives and political opportunists finalize the fundamental transformation of the United States. I am choosing to actually do something about it. How about you?

“The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” ~ Patrick Henry

* In the interest of transparency, the author sits on the board of directors for Founders Alliance USA.

SC Sen. Lindsey Graham Has A Viable Challenger

REENVILLE, S.C., April 17, 2014 /Christian Newswire/ – Amidst a crowded field of challengers, The State newspaper reported that Richard Cash leads all challengers to incumbent Lindsey Graham in cash on hand. As of March 31, 2014, Cash reported $464,056 on hand, followed by Det Bowers ($384,248), Bill Connor ($314,529), Nancy Mace ($223,000), Lee Bright ($78,557), and Benjamin Dunn ($10,000). Cash also led all challengers in the report at the end of 2013.

In addition to cash on hand, Cash has also demonstrated strong grassroots support. Cash said, “I have the most signs up around the state and as far as I know I am the only candidate to report holding large grassroots type events.” Cash had over 500 in attendance at a BBQ in Anderson in November, 300 at a BBQ in N. Augusta in early February, 140 in Greenwood in late February, and 700-800 on hand in Greenville on March 31. 

Although Lindsey Graham has an enormous financial advantage, Cash says that there is a path to victory. “I have been telling people for months,” said Cash, “that if Lindsey Graham is held in the low 40s in the primary vote, he is vulnerable to being defeated in a run-off. The latest poll shows that Graham’s approval rating is only 40%, while his disapproval rating is 44%.” If Graham is held in the low 40s on the first vote, Cash believes that money will come in from around the country to fund a competitive run-off.

Cash plans to continue his grassroots and fundraising efforts and believes he is well positioned among the challengers for the stretch run. According to Cash, “I don’t mind the competition; I’ve run in a large field before. I believe multiple candidates make it more likely that Graham will be forced into a run-off and I won a six way Congressional primary in 2010 before losing a close run-off.” The SC Republican primary is June 10th.

 

richardcashforsenate.com

Voter Fraud: What Americans Think



voter fraud
When Democats and/or liberals resist efforts to ensure the integrity of our electoral process, they often say, “What voter fraud?” They continue to resist any efforts (like voter ID) that would help ensure that you are who you say you are when you register and/or vote. They claim that requiring voter ID is akin go voter supression, and that voter fraud is so rare that errors should side with permitting anyone to vote.

Voter fraud DOES exist. For example, in the 2012 presidential election, Ohio Secretary of State John Husted announced that he had discovered that 17 non-citizens had illegally cast ballots. Husted also found that 274 non-citizens remain on the voting rolls. And in Florida, “One Naples voter admitted she was an illegal alien – but election records show she voted six times in the past eleven years.”

Well, it seems as if American citizens are fed up with the entire situation. A recent Rasmussen poll found that 78% of “Likely U.S. Voters” believe everyone should be required to prove his or her citizenship before being allowed to register to vote, up from 71% a year ago.

And 61% of voters believe laws that require proof of citizenship before allowing voter registration does not discriminate against such voters, while 29% think it does. That 61% is up from 58% in March 2013. Supporters of proof-of-citizenship laws say that they are intended to keep ineligible voters from casting votes, while opponents claim they are intended to keep eligible voters from voting.

Then there is Melowese Richardson, who said on camera that she voted for Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama six times, once for herself and five times for other people. She was recently embraced and congratulated for her efforts by Al Sharpton at a voting rights rally in Cincinnati. A vast majority of Americans are fed up with people like her as well. A Rasmussen survey shows that 70% of “Likely U.S. Voters” believe all voters should be required to prove their identity before being allowed to vote, while only 25% oppose such a requirement.

And the legal tide seems to be turning a well. A federal judge ruled on March 19 that Arizona and Kansas may require residents to prove they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote. This is a clear rebuke to the DOJ and Obama Administration: both had strongly fought the move.

How CPAC Stacked the Deck on the Amnesty Panel

illegal-aliens-obamacatchreleasevoteHere’s a handy rule of thumb: If two of the four members of an immigration panel have Hispanic surnames you can bet it’s an amnesty panel in disguise. That was certainly the case at CPAC’s ‘Can There Be Meaningful Immigration Reform Without Citizenship?’

(This phenomenon is evidently peculiar to Hispanics. If two people named Schmidt and Kruger were on a panel it would be unfair to assume they enthusiastically support bomb damage reparations from WWII.)

Alfonso Aguilar and the Rev. Luis Cortes were joined by moderator Mercy Schlapp — a veteran of the Bush White House that was pushing amnesty until 9/11. The anti–amnesty speaker was Derrick Morgan of the Heritage Foundation and the afternoon’s advocate for the feudal system was Helen Krieble.

Schlapp set the tone when she remarked on the favor illegals were doing the economy by being here. Much like burglars boost an area’s GDP when they make the rounds of pawn shops.

Sbe was followed by Kreible, president of the Vernon K. Kreible Foundation, who said the debate should be about American principles: Equal treatment under the law, individual freedom and personal responsibility. So far so good, but then she reduced our choices to a false binary: Grant amnesty or do nothing.

The realistic option is removing the job incentive for illegals. But that is not a choice Kreible will ever entertain, because that would mean business can’t import serfs. She claims it’s wrong to set “artificial” limits on the number of workers you can hire. It’s Kreible’s belief that borders are a government matter, but workers are a business matter. In practice this means the federal government can keep Mohamed Atta out, unless he plans to mow your lawn.

What Kreible objects to is that ‘citizen’ word. She wants to implement a “red card” program that puts citizens in the penalty box. She would import workers without conveying citizenship or the right to remain after the job is over. This is similar to the wildly successful Turkish guest worker program the Germans had. Only problem is the Turks are still in Germany.

And while individuals should be “responsible,” American business is exempt. Right now if a US business thinks US workers want too much money, the business is free to open a subsidiary in Mexico and hire all the Mexicans it wants. But that’s a problem for agribusiness corporations, because shipping Alabama to Chihuahua would be a logistical nightmare. What’s more, sometimes the Mexican government seizes private business, you can’t trust the cops, ‘mordida’ cuts into profit margins and there’s always that decapitation problem.

So for Kreible the business solution is to flood the labor market by bringing Mexico here and let taxpayers deal with social costs.

Unfortunately for her there is no moral, ethical or conservative justification for bringing in foreign labor when unemployment in the US is over 7 percent and labor participation rates are at an all time low.

Alfonso Aguilar, director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, evidently believes the word ‘conservative’ is a verbal spice you sprinkle on leftist policies to make them more palatable for genuine conservatives. He wants conservatives to “own” the immigration issue by out–pandering the Democrats.

Aguilar contends the entire illegal problem is a result of “big government” setting quotas and holding the quaint notion that US jobs should go to US citizens. He recycles every lame, reverse racist amnesty cliché he could find, beginning with illegals are doing the jobs Americans won’t do.

After that howler he became incoherent. Aguilar says illegals taking jobs here “creates jobs for working class Americans.” He claims that illegals did not disregard the rule of law because they didn’t come here voluntarily. Instead business brought them here. This was genuine news to me. Who would have thought coyotes were members of the Chamber of Commerce?

Aguilar also introduced the concept of “circular immigration.” Letting illegals come here and return to their home country as many times as they and Greyhound wished. Although something tells me the circle would stop abruptly in the US when it came time to collect Social Security.

He was followed by the Rev. Luis Cortes who is the president of Esperanza. The organization’s website motto is: “Strengthening our Hispanic community” meaning it’s La Raza with a Bible. Cortes’ solution is to make citizens of anyone who ranks Cinco de Mayo ahead of the 4th of July. Otherwise, “it gives Democrats an issue.” And afterwards Democrats won’t need an issue because with 9 million or so new voters they’ll never lose another presidential election.

The most insulting aspect of the panel was how the pro–amnesty participants evidently believed using the word ‘conservative’ to describe leftist policies would somehow convince a gullible audience.

A conservative immigration reform would be built on trying something new: Enhancing the law we have now. Make it a felony to hire an employee that failed an E–Verify check or hire an employee without checking E–Verify. And strictly enforce the prohibition against illegals enrolling in any welfare or social programs.

Drying up the job market will accomplish two goals. First many of the illegals will self–deport. Second it will raise wages for US workers and lower the unemployment rate. Right now many jobs go unfilled by citizens because they aren’t willing to accept the prevailing wage scale in Juarez because they don’t live in Juarez. If employers were forced to pay wages high enough to attract US citizens, more citizens would work.

That’s a conservative, free market solution that’s good for the country and preserves the rule of law. Unfortunately the ‘C’ in CPAC now appears to stand for ‘capitulation.’

Perry, Paul & Huckabee at CPAC 2014

Gen. John Bell Hood, another Texan that could get a crowd moving.

Gen. John Bell Hood, another Texan that could get a crowd moving.

Gen. Robert E. Lee used Texas infantry as his reliable shock troops during the Civil War. If Hood’s division couldn’t drive the Yankees from a position, then no troops could.

Evidently CPAC schedulers are of the same opinion.

On both of the first two days of the conservative conference Texas speakers were used to soften up the crowd for all the speakers that followed.

On Thursday it was Sen. Ted Cruz (R–TX) and on Friday it was Gov. Rick Perry (R–TX).

Perry hit the stage cold to the tune of AC/DC’s ‘Back in Black’ and did so without anyone to introduce him. Perry is now sporting black nerd glasses that make him look more intellectual without softening him up so much that he looks like pajama boy in the Obamacare ad.

The governor began by stating that on the battlefield of ideas “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.” Then there was a long pause, which started to produce debate flashbacks for me, but it proved to be just a slow Internet connection.

Besides being another step on the stairway to political redemption, the speech was a rousing defense of federalism. Perry says for the solution to the problems facing the country we should not look to Washington, but instead we should look to the states that “are laboratories of innovation.”

And the states provide a contrast between two visions. In the blue vision the state “plays an increasing roll in the lives of citizens.” Taxes are high, public employee pensions are out of control and jobs are leaving.

Perry contrasted that smothering philosophy with the red state vision where “freedom of the individual comes first and the reach of government is limited.” There taxes are low, spending is low and opportunity is high.

Then Perry did something surprising. On Friday when Chris Christie spoke the examples were mostly about him and about New Jersey. But that’s not what Perry did. He started off by giving other Republican governors credit for their good ideas and successful records.

He mentioned Nikki Haley in South Carolina, Bobby Jindal in Louisiana, Scott Walker in Wisconsin and Rick Scott in Florida. Then Perry proceeded to list accomplishments particular to each.

Perry was halfway through his speech before he even mentioned Texas. He spoke first of the common denominator among all red state leaders, “Conservative governors who know freedom of the individual must come before the power of the state…the contrast is crystal clear.” He then used an example from the world of transportation. “If you rent a U–Haul to move your company it costs twice as much to go from San Francisco to Austin as it does the other way around, because you can’t find enough trucks to flee the Golden State.”

Only then did Perry say, “Let’s pick a large red state, shoot let’s pick Texas” as he began listing his accomplishments. This is one of the reasons Perry is so likable: He doesn’t appear to take himself too seriously. He, in contrast to Obama, is not The Great I Am.

His speech was full of humor, substance and energy. Perry has been on the comeback trail now for two years and he’s making progress. His demeanor and energy level is in marked contrast to that of the disastrous 2012 presidential campaign.

I have no way of knowing if he’s a terror to his staff or if he kicks the family dog, but you certainly can’t tell it from his personal appearances. If it wasn’t for his squishiness on illegals, I’d almost be ready to vote for Perry today.

I can’t say that for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Politically Huckabee is simply George Bush who can tell a joke. There are many things I admire about Huckabee: His faith, his conservative social values and his sense of humor in particular. But as president he would be spending at least as much as Bush and I see no indication that he’s ever seriously considered putting Uncle Sam on a diet.

And speaking of diets, Huckabee’s is evidently not going too well. In stark contrast to his former fit self, now if the occasion arose Huckabee could fill in quite nicely as Chris Christie’s body double.

Huckabee’s speech began on a discordant note. He was given the same 10 minutes as Rick Perry, but he wasted some of the time complaining about only getting 10 minutes. In contrast to Perry’s upbeat and dynamic address, Huckabee came off as slightly petulant.

His speech was structured around a series of “I knows” that included, “I know the IRS is a criminal organization. I know that life begins at conception. I know there’s a God and this nation would not exist if He had not been the midwife of its birth.”

He even obliquely addressed homosexual marriage when he quoted Mrs. Billy Graham who said, “If God does not bring fiery judgment on America, God will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.”

Huckabee concluded with a final “I know” that brought back memories of his rocky beginning when he said, “I know my time is up and I must go.”

Diet jokes aside, he simply wasn’t a heavyweight on Day Two and if Huckabee is indeed running for president in 2016 this speech didn’t help his case.

Sen. Rand Paul (R–KY) was the other major league presidential candidate speech of the day. He had double the time allotted to Perry, yet I don’t think his speech had the same impact. They are two entirely different personalities. Paul comes off as somewhat remote and clinical when he speaks. He certainly says the right things and delivers a polished speech, but he doesn’t have the infectious enthusiasm of Rick Perry.

Personally I wonder how many of the reporters who pronounced Chris Christie as rehabilitated after the response to his speech the day before were around for Paul’s. The packed room was on its feet and cheering before the senator could say a word. Christie on the other hand had a much smaller crowd and response was polite until very late in his performance.

Paul’s speech was about liberty but it was also about sending a message to the Mitch McConnells, John McCains, Lindsey Grahams and other establishment RINOs. Paul asked the audience to “Imagine a time when our great country is governed by the Constitution. You may think I’m talking about electing Republicans, but I’m not. I’m talking about electing lovers of liberty.”

“It isn’t good enough to pick the lesser of two equals,” Paul explained. “We must elect men and women of principle and conviction and action who will lead us back to greatness. There is a great and tumultuous battle underway not for the Republican Party but for the entire country.

Then in a challenge to elected leaders and party supporters alike, Paul asked, “The question is will we be bold and proclaim our message with passion or will we be sunshine patriots retreating when we come under fire?”

Paul then focused on the NSA, data mining and the entire security mindset of the government, which he believes is dangerous. He referenced the Sons of Liberty from the Revolution who stood up to King George and predicted, “The Sons of Liberty would today call out to the president. ‘We will not submit. We will not trade our liberty for security. Not now. Not ever.’”

Getting down to cases with an audience that skewed toward youth and tech savvy, Paul explained, “If you have a cell phone, you are under surveillance. I believe what you do on your cell phone is none of their damn business.”

His other examples of government overreach in the name of security included detention without a trial, individual warrants applied to a class of people, credit card data collection, cell phone metadata and other violations of the 4th Amendment.

The senator stated flatly “Government unrestrained by law becomes nothing short of tyranny.” Then he used Daniel Webster to show the fight for liberty has been an ongoing struggle that must be continued today. “Daniel Webster anticipated our modern day saviors who wish to save us from too much freedom. He wrote: ‘Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It’s hardly too strong to say the Con was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.’”

Paul wasn’t giving so much a speech, as he was Peter the Hermit asking the young people to join in a crusade. He has passionate ideas and beliefs, but Paul’s delivery is simply not as winning as that of Perry. One can be serious without being sepulchral.

It will be very interesting to follow the arc of both campaigns as I see Perry being a bigger threat to Paul than the other Texan, Ted Cruz.

Blacks, Homosexuals, and Atheists at CPAC 2014 – OH MY!

Can you believe that the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), held by a group of white, elitist, stuffy old men was infiltrated by blacks, homosexuals, Hispanics, Asians, and atheists? Oh my! What is this world coming to?

What’s really crazy is that so many on the Left wrote lies about this. No, not mis-truths, not misspeaks, just lies… period.

The Left would have you believe that CPAC = KKK. That Conservative’s and conservative Republicans are nothing more than the KKK rebranded. How desperate is that?

The first story I read talked about how CPAC threw out a bunch of atheists and wouldn’t allow “them” at the event. CPAC made the right call. It wasn’t all atheists. Just one particular group.

CPAC officials who originally approved the atheist group’s booth and accepted a check for their sponsorship and entry cancelled it after they received validated information that the group was going to try to disrupt the event. An event where over 3000 people were going to be in a relatively small area. Good call. The Left spins it as “Atheist Kept from CPAC.” Isn’t that what they always do? No real argument. The full truth won’t work for them, so they spin it a little to aggravate their base. It’s the equivalent to, if you’re losing the game flip the board.

I also heard that gays and lesbians were not welcome, really? One of my interns and helpers is a lesbian. (Shhhh! Don’t tell anyone, I may get thrown out of the conservative playground.) Did I know before they started? No! Why? Because, contrary to popular belief, our applications don’t ask if you are gay, lesbian, transgender, black, Asian or anything other than a white heterosexual. Oh, and, we don’t care. As long as you can do the job.

And once again, the Left starts to lose the argument… time to flip the board!
In years gone by, the Left had infiltrated the group, by lying. In 2012, a large group of far-left progressives bought into premium seats as being part of a “conservative magazine group.” The whole goal was to disrupt the keynote speaker. When the speaker started, about 50 of these “liars” got up to protest. In response, over 400 people in the room started shouting USA and the “liars” were drowned out. Desperation really makes for fools doesn’t it?

Many of the Left can’t accept anything someone like me has to say… at all… ever. They are so opposed to any conservative idea that without even checking out the facts and the inability to control their tongues, they come out and try to invalidate any and all conservative points. Doesn’t that really help us come together as a country and a people? No, not really.

Their argument is losing steam. Americans are starting to do their own homework.

By the way, as a point of fact, it was the Left, the progressive Democrats, the “big tent” party that started, supported, and funded the KKK. I guess the easiest way to get out of an uncomfortable situation (or history) is to deflect and blame someone else. They are very good at it.

In my 3 days at CPAC, I found out that over 50% of those in attendance were students! (Not old white guys!) About half of “Radio Row” were “Other than White” (did I just create a new classification “OTW”?) As I looked around the room when Sarah Palin was speaking, was it a majority “white” yes. Was there a sea of OTW’s? Yes!

When Ben Carson, Al Cardenas, Ted Cruz, John Barraso, Bobby Jindal, Tim Scott and the many panels that had OTW’s on them, the same sea of people was there. That really confused me. For a group supposedly made up of old, white, bigoted, homophobic racists who exclude anyone who isn’t like them, there sure was a lot of OTW’s there to address the crowd! And they were well-received! Shocked? I wasn’t.

You see the reality is that we don’t care. We don’t care what color you are, who you sleep with, or where you came from. When I got on the plane I didn’t check to see if the pilot was black, homosexual, gay, straight, or even a Christian. I only cared that he could fly the plane.

Conservatives care that you can do the job and that you are adhering to our laws. We want you to have been given the same opportunities that everyone else has and expect that you will respect my freedom as much as you want me to respect yours. We also expect that you will take responsibility for your own errors and missteps, and work to make them right.

Be a good American… black, white, Asian, Hispanic, gay, straight, short, tall, large, small… we don’t care. Just do the right thing.

America, you better wake up or lose your country.

CPAC Day One Part 2

Chris Christie dolls were not for sale at CPAC.

Chris Christie dolls were not for sale at CPAC.

The Curious Case of the Leaf Blower that Didn’t Roar

Sen. Marco Rubio walked on stage and contrary to rumor, he wasn’t wearing a sombrero. In fact he gave what could be called a surgical speech, because he completely buried any reference to his amnesty mistake late last year.

In fact he talked about almost everyone’s border but that of the US. Rubio is for protecting Japan’s border. Ukraine’s border. Even Israel’s border, but not a peep about the border violations Mexico encourages. We’ve being invaded, too but no one but the taxpayers seems to care.

Rubio’s new focus is obviously on foreign policy, since amnesty policy was disastrous for him. He goes East and Easter, touching no points South. He touched on the tax code, regulations and energy. And he still has that problem with words–per–gallon. In a speech that was only 15 minutes long, Rubio still had to stop to take a drink.

Verdict: Nice young man, but not ready.

In a very fitting bit of scheduling, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie spoke just before lunch.

The bully governor used his bully pulpit to talk about his fight against public employee unions and the struggle to reform their pensions. Christie told the audience how he faced union members in their den as he went to the firefighter’s convention and walked through the crowd to get to the podium. But Christie misses the point. No one questions his courage. Conservatives question his convictions.

At the end of his firefighter’s speech he said two–thirds of the audience was cheering him. I don’t know if two–thirds of the conservative base will be cheering for a candidate who also favors amnesty. A topic Christie also failed to bring up.

Christie wants the party to start talking “about what we are for and not what we are against.” He contends that government is about “getting things done.” But that’s what intrusive Democrats say, too.

It was obvious from his speech that all the Sandy storm money is now in the bank, because the governor felt liberated to criticize his new best friend Obama, “What the hell are we paying him for, if he won’t lead?”

Christie summarized by saying under his administration there are fewer state employees, less spending and teacher tenure reforms. He added he’s pro–life but did so in the third person. But there was not a word about smaller government or less intrusive government. I get the feeling he’s Teddy Roosevelt with bariatric surgery. Activism got us in the mess we’re in today.

Christie got a standing ovation, but it was as he was leaving.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »