Category Archives: 2012 Election News

Why amnesty for illegal aliens MUST be stopped

NOTE: Fox News reports that House Republicans have nearly finished working on their version of an amnesty bill. Folks, please call and write your Congressman and your Senators and tell them that you will NEVER vote for them again if they sponsor, cosponsor, or vote for amnesty in any form.

It’s clear that, on illegal immigration, Republicans, like the Bourbons of the Restoration Era, have forgotten nothing and learned nothing. Republicans – including both classic RINOs such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham and supposed “conservatives” like Marco Rubio – are again pushing for amnesty. Things are being made worse by the fact that this time around, libertarians, led by Sen. Rand Paul, support them on amnesty. (Paul supports a “path to citizenship” if the border is secured – as determined by… whom, exactly? We don’t know.)

A few weeks ago, Marco Rubio, flanked by discredited RINOs John McCain and Lindsey Graham and by four Democratic Senators, announced his support for “bipartisan” immigration law reform that would include amnesty for illegal aliens after the border is “secured” (whatever that word means).

The next day, as Pat Buchanan points out, President Obama rejected these RINO’s surrender offer – their offer of conditional amnesty – reminding the pro-amnesty RINOs that those who surrender don’t dictate the terms of surrender.

These RINOs and other people tell us that the GOP must embrace amnesty for illegal aliens in order to win Hispanics’ votes. Embrace amnesty or perish, they tell us.

But they’re dead wrong. The GOP will perish if it adopts their proposals, NOT if it rejects amnesty. That’s because most Hispanics are natural liberals, and giving amnesty (under whatever name) to 12-20 million illegal immigrants from the Third World will create 12-20 million new Democrat voters.

Say there are only 12 mn illegal immigrants in America. Let’s assume they’re legalized and that Republicans achieve George W. Bush levels of the Hispanic vote (44%). That still gives the Democrats a net gain of 1.6 million new voters – 6.72 mn new supporters vs 5.28 mn.

Easy to see why the Democrats are for this. But why would a Republican Party that is not suicidally-minded support this?

If amnesty is passed, you can kiss the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and many governorships and state legislatures goodbye, forever. Republicans will never again be able to win any national election again. The Democrats will gain at least 1.6 mn new voters on net and will thus have permanent majorities in Arizona, Texas, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada.

When Texas goes, America goes.

Consider: while 18 states that have a combined 242 Electoral College votes have voted Democratic in the last consecutive six presidential elections, cobbling together an EC majority has been increasingly difficult for Republicans. Republicans last did it in 2004, and completely failed to do so in 4 of the last 6 elections.

California, overwhelmed by immigrants (legal and illegal), is now stridently liberal. New Mexico is now also out of reach for the GOP. Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, and Florida are increasingly problematic for Republicans. Only Texas and Arizona remain secure – for now.

As Pat Buchanan likes to say: when Texas goes, America goes.

If amnesty becomes law, there goes Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Florida, Virginia, and Texas, and there goes the presidency, forever.

The “natural conservatives” canard

In response, we always hear “But don’t worry, Hispanics are natural conservatives. They are devout Catholics, devout social conservatives, work hard, and want to achieve the American dream.”

This canard is utterly false. This description is true only of a minority of Hispanics – those whom conservatives usually meet. But the vast majority of Hispanics don’t fit that description at all.

As a demographic group, Hispanics are less likely than any other (other than Jews) to attend church or support conservative policies, more likely to support liberal ones, and more likely than any other group (other than blacks) to vote Democratic, achieve poor school grades, drop out of high school, commit crimes, end up in prison, have children out of wedlock, be pregnant during teenagehood (girls), be raised by single parents, and be dependent on welfare and other government programs.

This is the antithesis of a natural conservative.

The canard about Hispanics being “natural conservatives” is even more idiotic than the one about blacks being “natural conservatives”. At least blacks really are social conservatives – they simply vote Democratic anyway, ignoring the fact that the Democrats support abortion on demand (read: the Holocaust of black children[1]) and gay marriage.

And as Ann Coulter points out, last year, Hispanics were almost alone in increasing the share of their vote going to Obama from 2008 to 2012. Only they and Asians voted for Obama in greater numbers in 2012 than in 2008. (The black vote for Obama remained, alas, unchanged at over 90%.)

Every other demographic group: whites, men, women, youngsters, Evangelicals, Catholics, Jews – gave a larger share of their vote to the Republican nominee in 2012 than in 2008. In fact, if the election were to be decided only by whites, or if the electorate had been as white in 2012 as it was in 1980, Romney would’ve trashed Obama by a landslide.

It is ethnic minorities – Hispanics, Asians, and blacks – who reelected Obama.

Profiles in Welfare

And what does a typical Hispanic (or black) voter look like? Pat Buchanan gives us the answer.

He or she is raised by a single mother. He/she, like his single mom, is completely dependent on the federal government and its cornucopia of social programs for survival.[2]

His/her education is paid for, K-12, by the federal and state governments. For college, he can apply for federal student loans and other federal programs. For food, mom has foodstamps, and children get 2-3 federally-subsidized meals at school every day.

If mom works, she has no tax liability thanks to a high no-tax treshold and the Earned Income Tax Credit. If she doesn’t work, she gets welfare benefits, including 99 weeks of unemployment compensation.

For healthcare, there’s Medicaid and Obamacare.

And that’s the majority of Hispanic families. Why would these people vote for a party that pledges to cut taxes they don’t pay and promises to cut the government programs they benefit from? Wouldn’t logic dictate voting for a party that promises to let them keep this entire cornucopia of federal benefits and even to expand them?

The problem is all immigration – not just illegal immigration

We’re also being constantly told another cretinous canard: that legal immigration is fine, it’s just illegal immigration that’s problematic.

But this is also utterly false. Legal immigration is also a huge drain on the Treasury and a huge political threat to the GOP. The problem is not just illegal immigration; the problem is immigration, period.

Since 1965, a million newcomers have immigrated to America every year on average, the vast majority of them from dysfunctional, socialist Third World countries like Mexico.

It is thanks to THESE immigrants that California and New Mexico are now out of reach and why CO, NV, FL, and VA are increasingly problematic for the GOP. It is thanks to THESE legal immigrants that Obama was elected and reelected. If they hadn’t been present in the US, Obama would’ve never been elected, let alone reelected after a disastrous first term.

Therefore, not only should Republicans stop amnesty dead in its tracks, they must also severely restrict legal immigration when they retake the White House and the Senate. This must include eliminating chain immigration, a 10-year moratorium on legal immigration, and then, allowing only highly-educated, English-speaking immigrants who will be able to find a job and will not become a drain on taxpayers.

Statistics from the Center for Immigration Studies prove that when legal immigration grows, illegal immigration grows with it; and when the rate of legal immigration is reduced, illegal immigration declines concurrently.

Remember: the problem is not just “illegal immigration”, the problem is immigration, period.

A matter of life and death

As Ann Coulter points out, massive immigration – both legal and illegal – has turned California into such a liberal state that no Republican can win statewide in California anymore. Not so long ago, this state gave America great Republican Senators and Governors such as Richard Nixon, S. I. Hayakawa, Ronald Reagan, and Pete Wilson.

New Mexico has now gone the same way. The GOP nowadays can’t even win presidential elections in CO, NV, FL, or VA. Only Arizona and Texas remain secure – for now.

And as Pat Buchanan says, when Texas goes, America goes.

We conservatives must not allow that to happen. Amnesty must be stopped dead in its tracks, and legal immigration must be severely restricted.

This is literally a matter of life and death, for the GOP, the conservative movement, and the Country.

45 Gun and Ammo Suppliers Refuse Sales to 2nd Amendment unfriendly state

Well despite all the doom and gloom that keeps our attention these days I read something that can shed some optimism. There are 44 gun suppliers that are refusing to ship firearms or ammunition to law enforcement agencies in states that are infringing on 2nd amendment rights.

Barrett Firearms followed by the list of others who are doing the same. Please show your support by thanking them, and sending letters to other gun suppliers, your local, state, and federal reps, as well as local police and sheriff departments.  Remember people: UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL.

You can also cut and paste the last article I wrote here  at Conservative Daily News  to send as email attachments or via snail mail. Please do not sit by idly – that is NOT the American way.


This is a great beginning –

Source:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/23/gaining-momentum-now-42-gun-companies-have-stopped-selling-to-law-enforcement-in-anti-2nd-amendment-states/

Ohio Poll Worker Accused of Voter Fraud

Melowese Richardson, a Cincinnati poll worker who admits to voting for Barack Obama multiple times in the last election.

Melowese Richardson, a Cincinnati poll worker who admits to voting for Barack Obama multiple times in the last election.

Check out this video and story from Eric Shawn of Fox news where an Ohio poll worker, Melowese Richardson, admits to voting multiple times for President Obama, perhaps as many as six times. She is one of 19 potential cases of voter fraud being investigated in Hamilton County alone where the city of Cincinnati is located.

It’s amazing, but the cases of non-existent voter fraud from the progressive left keep cropping up. Weird!

Opposition leaders from the Republican Party are justifiably upset, but who believes that this little old black grandmother will be prosecuted, especially under this administration and an Eric Holder Department of Justice? It was Holder’s DOJ remember that refused to prosecute New Black Panther Party members who showed up at the polls in the last election in Philadelphia to intimidate voters. Those gentlemen were emboldened by Holder’s lack of action and had the audacity to show up again this election season.

In Minnesota, voters defeated a bill aimed at eliminating voter fraud by requiring photo ID at the polls, (or did we?)The integrity of the election system is continually under assault by people who will stop at nothing to get the politicians they want. How can we believe that the rights of the so called minority are being upheld if we don’t really know who the minority is? There may be some truth to the notion that Barak Obama failed to win any state with a voter ID election law. Does that mean those laws are working or is it because those laws ‘disenfranchise’ certain voters?

With issues such as health care, drones targeting American Citizens abroad, civil rights and gun control on the table, how can any of us afford to be disenfranchised by voters who cheat? Something has to be done to keep these fraudsters at bay or we will lose our representative republic forever.

It doesn’t matter what party commits fraud, voter fraud hurts all of us.

 

Roe at 40: A Discussion with Live Action’s Lila Rose

Screen Shot 2013-01-23 at 4.25.03 PMOn January 22, the United States celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case, which legalized abortion in all fifty states.  In doing so, the Court usurped a developing consensus amongst the state legislatures on the issue, and violated the principle of federalism that should guide how we enact policy in this country.  Nevertheless, Roe, in estimates from The National Right to Life Committee, has been responsible for 54,559,615 abortions since 1973.  As Daniel Halper wrote for The Weekly Standard on January 22,”that…means there are more than 3,300 abortions daily and 137 abortions per hour every hour in the United States. Translated another way, an abortion is done about every 30 seconds in the United States.”

I was fortunate to have a discussion with Live Action’s President, Lila Rose, on the future of the pro-life movement, and what activities they intend to aggressively pursue in this vicious front of America’s culture war.  Live Action has been at the forefront of documenting abuses made by Planned Parenthood in various undercover stings across the country.  What follows is an edited transcript of our conversation.

In the wake of the 2012 elections, pro-life Americans found themselves back in the minority.  What does Live Action plan to do to turn that tide, especially reaching out to the youth, and urban areas where most abortions are performed?

Sure.  Well, first of all – I mean a lot of the latest polling indicates that more Americans consider themselves pro-life than pro-choice. And there’s certainly in the last forty years, despite the Supreme Court case  [Roe v. Wade] that vandalized our constitution and made abortion somehow a right – Americans – more and more with the rise of the ultra sound imagery and with the rise of independent media have been seeing the truth about the child in the womb. And the number of pro-lifers is increasing.  Particularly, one of the strongest demographics is young people.

Live Action’s work reaches over a million people every week through social media. We have a news website that’s contributed by over 50 writers; most of them young people, investigating and doing original reporting on the abortion industry – and lobby.   And it’s really been amazing to see this growth from people all over the country – the grassroots – who want the truth about human dignity and who want to expose the violence of abortion  – the injustice of abortion.  And that is a movement that’s only growing.  And Live Action also has a magazine, a leading pro-life magazine, for students on hundreds of high school and colleges, and reaching them every day on campuses, as well as online – and that’s one of the programs we’re going to be aggressively building in the next year because we believe that when you put the truth in front of students – when you put the truth in front of young people. When you put the truth out there, then it changes hearts and minds, and we’ve seen that again and again.

A new NBC/WSJ poll showed that 70% of Americans don’t want Roe v. Wade to be overturned, and 24% want it to be overturned.  Thirty-nine percent approve of the decision, 18% disapprove – but 41% don’t have enough information to make an opinion.  In that regard, how successful have you been in educating Americans, who may not know much about Roe v. Wade – or its implications on our society?

Right, it’s a great question. I think that – that study directly reveals the amazing opportunity we have as a movement because there are a lot of people who are unreached in our country with the truth about abortion and human dignity.  And Live Action may be reaching a million people online every week.  But there are over 300+ million more people to reach.  So, this is really just the beginning of – you know, this is – we’re at an amazing point where we have the tools at our disposal, and the truth at our disposal – and now it’s a matter of how many people can we reach.

Is Live Action, as an organization, planning to lobby Congress to resurrect PRENDA (Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act), which punishes doctors for performing sex-selecive abortions?

Sure.  Well, the focus of Live Action Advocate, our 501 (c) (4) that I’m involved with, and the focus of Live Action Advocate, as it has been one of the rallying cry/calls of the pro-life movement is to make sure that the biggest abortion chain in the country, Planned Parenthood, is no longer receiving the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that it get every year from the government – and under President Obama that number has skyrocketed to half a billion of taxpayers dollars goes to the biggest abortion chain.  So, that really is the priority.  We need a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  We need to establish the personhood of the unborn child, and part of the path to make that happen we need to make sure that the abortion industry, in our country, is not being subsidized by the government.

Rose also debunked the claim that abortion represents only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services, which was also exposed as false in a op-ed in Life News by the Americans United for Life Legal Team last October.  However, it’s still a tough fight.  As Allahpundit wrote for Hot Air last November, only 38% described themselves as pro-life, compared to 54% who identified themselves as pro-choice.  However, this was fresh off the 2012 elections, and Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock’s unfortunate comments about rape and pregnancy surely didn’t help the cause. However, Life News’ Steve Ertelt has disputed recent polls showing a pro-choice majority.

Furthermore, Allahpundit wrote today that the NBC/WSJ poll could be skewed (NBC! no way!):

because Gallup didn’t specify ‘three months’ in its phrasing of the Roe question, more respondents focused on the entire term of pregnancy and that dropped the numbers. Or there could be some quirk in the methodology, specifically having to do with the number who answer ‘don’t know’ about Roe.

In the NBC poll, just six percent answered “not sure” when asked if the decision should be overturned; in Gallup, by contrast, “no opinion” draws 18 percent, which is more than 10 points higher than that figure used to be circa 2002-03. How come? Gallup has a theory:

Gallup trends indicate that the increase in public uncertainty about overturning Roe v. Wade is largely the result of a growing percentage of young adults aged 18 to 29 expressing no opinion. This suggests that the generation born entirely after Roe became law has had less exposure to information about the decision than those who lived through the original decision…

[…]

Good news and bad news there, obviously. Younger voters who express no opinion are potentially persuadable by pro-lifers, so in theory the anti-Roe numbers could expand in time. (Democratic overreach will help: Gallup notes that support for making abortion legal in all cases dropped after partial-birth abortion became a hot topic in the mid-90s.) Problem is, young adults are famously more liberal than other age groups on a variety of issues. That doesn’t mean they can’t make an exception for abortion.

Although, he did say that engaging Millenials on this issue is “going against the ideological tide.”

Nevertheless, Rose’s outreach initiatives through social media is where pro-lifers can turn the tide.  Case in point,  despite his poor economic record, Barack Obama vastly outspent Mitt Romney in social media last year, and won.  Go to where young people get their information.

This opportunity is accentuated with the resignation of NARAL Pro-Choice America’s President Nancy Keenan, who left since “most young, antiabortion voters see abortion as a crucial political issue,  [while] NARAL’s own internal research does not find similar passion among abortion-rights supporters.”

This whole fight is based on public opinion, which is shiftable sand.  However, with the dissemination of the facts, the malfeasance of Planned Parenthood, and the utilization of social media – pro-lifers, like Lila Rose, could easily gain the strategic edge over the long term.

The latest Live Action news, including their recent investigation into Planned Parenthood’s complicity in sex-selective abortion, can be found here.

 

Vindication for Romney? Jeeps to Be Built in China Come 2014.

Gratuitous Jeep

In case you’ve forgotten last Fall’s election (and, really, who can blame you if you’ve wanted to), Mitt Romney was called a liar for nearly every statement he made, this one included.  Last October, the former governor from Massachusetts said he’d read a story claiming that Chrysler might move production of Jeeps from the U.S. to China.  At the time, he was accused of trying to scare voters, but, as of this week, it turns out Chrysler does have plans to start building Jeeps in the world’s most populous nation by 2014.

Chrysler signed an agreement today with a Chinese automaker to build Jeeps in that country, part of worldwide expansion plans for the iconic American brand.  –ChinaCarTimes.com

Chrysler does claim, however, that while they will begin producing vehicles in China, they have no plans to cut the jobs currently held in the United States.  We’ll have to wait and see, but as of this moment, it looks like Romney didn’t pull the whole “build Jeeps in China” thing from thin air.

We’ll have to keep an eye on Chrysler and see how this plays out.  Until then, enjoy a gratuitous video of the Jeep Grand Cherokee from the 2011 Los Angeles Auto Show.  (video below)

The fiscal cliff could be the country’s cure

imagesCAH96SOT-Harry, Obama, and Nancy2

According to Wikipedia’s definition of the fiscal cliff Americans could suffer a little more short term pain for a lot more long term gain. Americans are used to suffering these last four years so what’s another few more?

The fiscal cliff by their definition is a number of different laws which if left unchanged could lead to tax increases, spending cuts, and a deficit reduction. Two out of the three are just what the doctor ordered. It is only the first one that could create a problem.

According to the United States Treasury Department the George W. Bush Tax Cuts are a major part of the solution not the problem. These tax cuts have become the political football for the Democrats to play with. They rail against them because they don’t fit their narrative however when push comes to shove they always vote to renew them. The Democrats never seem to suffer politically because the propagandist’s in the media always provide cover for them.

The Democrats treat the middle class like their red headed stepchildren. They use scare tactics like the fiscal cliff in order to keep voters on edge and loyal to their party. Then when the time is right they trash Republicans as being obstructionists and play the role of savior by saving the middle class from inevitable ruin by renewing the tax cuts. The best actors and actresses are not in Hollywood. They are in the Democratic Party.

The Bush Tax Cuts are not just a political football for Republicans to kick around; they are sound fiscal policy. They are proven job creators and have been tremendously beneficial to the middle class by shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid from lower income earners to higher income earners. These tax cuts have actually helped and in some cases even eliminated the tax burden on lower and middle income Americans. It is for this reason that these tax cuts need to be made permanent and a mandatory part of the negotiations. For more on this see this article. http://www.examiner.com/article/how-to-end-the-class-warfare-argument?cid=db_articles

The second part of the fiscal cliff is spending cuts. Do you hear the crickets? Of course spending cuts! The last time I check our deficit was almost 17 trillion with a capital T. Our government has been spending more than it has been taking in for years and it needs to stop. We need to cut all the wasteful programs out of our government and the ones we keep should be returned to the states where they could be run more efficiently.

Another thing we can do is to immediately restore the work requirement for welfare. Ronald Reagan once famously said, “Welfare’s purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence. He then goes on to say, “The best and most effective social program the government can help create is a job.” Reagan left no ambiguity as to how he felt towards big government when he famously quipped, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

Being on welfare should never be a permanent financial solution for anyone. Removing the work requirement just adds to more government dependency which is exactly what most in the Democratic Party want. This policy is bad for the economy because it dramatically increases spending and allows recipients to become more complacent and ultimately makes it that much harder for people to get off of welfare. When government can’t solve a problem, they throw taxpayer’s money at it. Unfortunately for us it doesn’t provide solutions; it only exacerbates the problem.

The third part is deficit reduction. A constitutional amendment for a balanced budget would be a great start. If the Republicans were smart they would be bringing this up as a mandatory part of the negotiations. This is a winning issue and right now the Democrats are winning the fiscal cliff argument.

A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution will make future battles over fiscal policy much more transparent and opaque. The Democrats will not be able to move the goal posts like they do now and Republicans will be able to restore some resemblance of fiscal sanity. In addition, Republicans ought to be exposing all the horrible taxes that are just around the corner from the health care bill. If the Republican Party uses what little left they have in political capitol correctly than they can bypass the media and get the public on their side. A minority in Congress and a majority in America can create a majority in Congress.

Rather than raising taxes on job creators Republicans would be better off just letting the Democrats drive us over the fiscal cliff. By allowing this to happen maybe the American people will finally wake up and realize that liberal policies do not work. Republicans could than be in a stronger position to win in 2014 and beyond. The Republican Party and more importantly the country would benefit in the long run.

Republicans need to stand firm and call the Democrat’s bluff on the fiscal cliff. The Democrats will not allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. They know that if that happened the economy would go into an immediate recession. For political reasons if nothing else they won’t let that happen. However if it did happen along with spending cuts and a deficit reduction you would have the makings of a real recovery. And as the famous Meat Loaf song goes two out of three ain’t bad.
..

Suggested by the author:
Are we still a center right country?
Welcome to the dependent states of America
Obamacare is bad for business and your health
What the word forward means in Obama’s America
An armed society is a polite society

Misinterpreting Obama’s Tax Mandate

Obama-tax-the-richI have written before regarding Obama’s legitimate claim to a mandate for raising taxes on the “rich.” He made no secret of his plan to raise taxes during the campaign and voters — who for the most part know they won’t be paying the increased taxes — thought it was a fine idea and re–elected him.

This is a bad situation nationally, but potentially a good situation locally. That’s because locally–elected Democrats appear to be falling prey to what Alan Greenspan called “irrational exuberance.” They’re interpreting Obama’s mandate for national taxes as permission to increase local taxes, too.

Four of our local Prince William County, VA Board of Supervisors have presented budget proposals for the next fiscal year. And try as I might to avoid stereotyping these worthy public servants, dang if the Democrats don’t want to raise taxes, while the Republicans want to cut taxes.

All we need to be just like Washington is Warren Buffett, plutocrat with a guilty conscience, standing in front of the government center begging someone to raise his taxes.

Here’s where local Democrats are making their big mistake. PWC doesn’t face a “fiscal cliff” or any other kind of precipitous drop–off, because county budgets must balance every year. Spendacrats nationally — both Democrats & Republicans — have fought a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Consequently we have obese government that borrows almost 50 cents of every dollar it spends.

Voters get much more government than they pay for, hence Obama’s mandate.

Local balanced budgets serve to inhibit Democrat tax increase fever; since taxpayers must pay for all the government they receive, the same year they receive it.

Local Democrats who forget this will give Republicans and conservatives an opportunity to begin our political comeback.

I outlined Republican Chairman Corey Stewart’s budget a couple of weeks ago. In a nutshell Stewart would cut the average property tax bill by $132 next year. He saves $941,000.00 by eliminating supervisor’s ability to make charitable donations to private organizations with our tax dollars.

Stewart also ends the practice of subsidizing individual supervisor’s entertainment preferences by cutting all “arts” grants. He eliminates funding for Legal Services of Northern VA, ending the odd practice of the county funding the same group that often sues it. And he cuts money for programs Richmond orders, but doesn’t see fit to fund.

Total cuts amount to $9 million.

On the other hand, Democrat John Jenkins wants to boost county spending by $19 million and increase the average property tax bill by $408 (average assessed value is $310,000, so individual mileage will vary).

Evidently Democrat Frank Principi wants to do everything Jenkins does plus more. (It’s hard to be specific, Principi does not put particulars on his website and his office refused to answer an email query.) Principi would raise property tax bills an average of $447, so he can stimulate county spending by $44 million.

Jenkins wants to continue to play Santa Claus for charities with tax money, fund “arts” groups that can’t make it on their own, serve as free entertainment director for seniors, fund all the groups that Stewart cuts and keep neighborhood libraries open six days a week, to name but a few.

But “arts” spending is naturally not what Jenkins emphasizes. Local Democrats are not into disarmament as much as national Democrats, so he concentrates on the additional tax money that will be used to hire 25 new police officers and 25 to 30 new fire and rescue employees, because who could be against paying taxes for public safety?

I like cops and have had excellent experiences with the fire department. But that doesn’t stop me from asking if these additions are needed, which is one reason I’m no longer a Democrat. From 2010 to 2011 overall crime in the county decreased 6.7 percent and violent crime decreased 20.7 percent.

Now I certainly don’t want to penalize success, and the department is doing an excellent job, so let’s look at overall calls for service, which are often a leading indicator of future crime increases.

Well, nothing there either. Since between 2010 and 2011 the call for service total was essentially unchanged. Meanwhile, population increased by about 11,000 residents. Simply matching population growth could justify the addition of almost 12 officers.

The department added two in 2011, so one could support adding an additional 10 officers at a cost of approximately $1.2 million — not 25 at a cost of $3.1 million.

The situation with fire and rescue is similar. Calls for service increased 3 percent from 2011 to 2012, as did the population. But you don’t add fire and rescue the same way you do police officers, because for every paid fireman there are two volunteers. Since total fire and rescue is three times that of the police department, it makes more sense to add seven firemen at a cost of $770,000, instead of 25 at $2.75 million. The total for both comes to about $2 million in additional spending.

Jenkins could pay for all of these new government employees without raising taxes a penny if he simply embraced some of Stewart’s cuts. But local, like national, Democrats are not in the spending cut business. So it’s no wonder Jenkins was an integral part of the board that doubled PWC spending between 2000 and 2006.

Government grows because politicians aren’t spending their own money. The money Jenkins and Principi want to spend is free, because it’s yours. The only restraint on Democrats is the fact property taxes are paid by all property owners. There are no “one percenters” to gouge and Democrats are unable to embezzle from the future by borrowing, the way they do in Washington, DC.

And that’s the difference between the Obama mandate and local reality.

Still, it’s always so amusing when a local Democrat expresses concern about a taxpayer’s pocketbook.

During a recent board discussion of legislative priorities, Principi wanted the state to extend the Earned Income Tax Credit, because he wanted to “keep more money in the pockets of our citizens.”

Evidently because if the state took the money, Principi wouldn’t be able to get at it.

In Treatment

Screen Shot 2012-12-12 at 2.04.42 AM

Yes, Republicans are in treatment after their catastrophic loss last November.  We kept our majority in the House due to gerrymandering, and we lost two seats in the Senate.  Romney’s loss was bad, but our inability to gain seats in the Senate was ignominious.  Democrats were tasked with defending twenty-three senate seats, and twelve of those races had eminently beatable incumbents.  However, due to some of our party members’ obsession with rape and pregnancy, we’re short two seats when the next congress convenes.

What’s becoming increasingly clear is that the conservative movement is on defense.  For the past quarter century, it’s been the opposite.  I dare say that progressives have gotten inside the conservative psyche with ruthless efficiency.  Furthermore, we have an operational deficit.  Democrats are eons ahead of Republicans concerning targeting future voters.  The era of Karl Rove is over, and an heir apparent is absent.  President Obama outspent Mitt Romney ten to one on social media in his re-election effort.  The other side gets it – and they look cool doing it.  Obama’s team is the best out there.  It’s the meanest, toughest, and most vicious collection of political minds we’ve ever faced – and we lost.  There’s not way Eric Fehrnstrom, or anyone on Romney’s team, would’ve been able to counter their skills.  So, where do we go from here?

Abby Livingston at Roll Call wrote on December 10 that RNC Chairman Reince Priebus announced a new initiative to tackle the issues where Republicans are lacking.  It’s called the Growth and Opportunity Project.

There will be five chairmen of the effort. They are:

  • Henry Barbour, a national committeeman from Mississippi
  • Sally Bradshaw, a veteran senior strategist in Florida and national politics
  • Ari Fleischer, the former White House press secretary
  • Zori Fonalledas, a national committeewoman from Puerto Rico
  • Glenn McCall, a national committeeman from South Carolina

The objective of the group, according to a release, is “reviewing past practices and also making critical recommendations for the future” in eight areas:

  • campaign mechanics and ground game
  • messaging
  • fundraising
  • demographic partners and allies
  • third-party groups
  • campaign finance issues
  • presidential primaries
  • lessons learned from Democratic campaign tactics

Politico first reported the news and also noted that a similar self-examination is occurring with the Republican super PAC American Crossroads. And last week, CQ Roll Call reported that a similar postmortem occurred with regards to Republican digital efforts in 2012.

Yes, we all should remember the infamous Project ORCA, which was an unmitigated disaster. For example, GOTV operations were virtually paralyzed in Colorado.  The price for centralizing a decentralized campaign tactic was leaving 30,000 Romney volunteers unable to conduct strike listing, make phone calls to remind Republican voters, and turn them out in general.  Never. Again.

However, even conservative grassroots organizations, like Americans for Prosperity, have to lick their wounds.  They spent close to $120 million on this election cycle, which ended with conservative influence decreased in Washington.  Concerning the loss, I asked Stephanie Fontenot, AFP’s New Media Manager, if the organization had any plans to release more ads to put pressure on Republicans to not raise taxes during the volatile fiscal cliff negotiations.  She said “as for ads – we’re doing a lot of our reach organically, really concentrating on getting our followers and activists to push this out and put on the pressure online. Twitter gives us a unique way to get our message out in a more direct way to each member and his/her staff.”

One area that Republicans  – and conservatives  – desperately need to improve on is Hispanic outreach. We cannot continue to lose the Latino vote by a margin of 75%-23% again.  Additionally, Romney lost the Cuban vote in Florida, which paints an even bleaker picture when a once reliable bloc of voters switches sides.  To put things into perspective, Bush won 44% of Hispanics in 2004.

Fontenot said that “our [the conservative] message of economic freedom affects all Americans and we seek to reach Americans as a whole. We do recognize the need to craft that  message so that everyone is able to receive it. We are currently working on op-ed’s that will be published in English and in Spanish. Our AFP-Florida state chapter sends most of their press releases in more than one language.”  I couldn’t agree more.  However, the next step is actually putting some boots on the ground to touch voters in those communities.  Hispanics have a lot that is malleable with the Republican Party. It’s time we capitalize on that with a renewed fervor.

While AFP is looking to target Latinos and use social media to articulate conservatism to the masses, it all falls on how the establishment will take this new era.  Will they continue their efforts to moderate the party?  Will they finally decide that growing a backbone is essential in this fights?  I’m not sure.  The Republican Party’s sixty minutes aren’t up yet.

Should America Pay Detroit’s ‘Bacon Bailout’ for Obama Election Support

Should America pay for Obama Bailout Bacon for Detroit $200 million deficit because of voter election support?

When President Obama visits the Detroit area Monday, December 10th, should he bring a plane fill of election bacon payback for loyal Detroit voters?

City Councilwoman JoAnn Watson is demanding America give the city bailout “bacon” to erase Detroit’s $200 plus million deficit as a quid pro quo for Detroit’s overwhelming presidential election support of Obama. “Elections have consequences,” she believes. So should you prepare to heat up the frying pan and get that bacon ready for Detroiters at your pocketbook’s expense?

In a Tuesday, December 4th City Council Meeting, Councilwoman Watson reminded those in the council chambers that , “After the election of Jimmy Carter, the honorable Coleman Alexander, he went to Washington, D.C. and came home with some bacon,” she also emphasized, That’s what you do!”

Is that what this nation has come to, that cities can spend exorbitantly more than they take in on fat union retirement pensions, salaries and bonuses, and obligate their citizens and the children to a bleak monetary wasteland? The financial aftermath is then left to the state or the nation to be the financial cleanup crew because city officials refuse to demonstrate budgetary leadership?

As much as its Detroit officials claim they want to get their financial house in order, the city public unions demand more, the city cannot afford to tax more, and the citizens are left with escalating crime and deescalating essential city services.

It actually gets worse. Much worse!

If you are a Detroiter and you are in desperate need of a police officer to respond to a crime, or a fire fighter to address a raging fire nearby or at your home, your best response time is a guesstimate. Detroit residents that need rapid EMS services would be better off asking a neighbor or friend to drive them to the nearest emergency room, because EMS response time is totally abysmal according to a recent 2004 city audit.

In fact, the Detroit News suggests from that same study, that in addition to very substandard communication equipment, “Detroit is the only major American city that does not allow a firefighter or a police officer to aid a victim before the ambulance arrives.” If you are one of the fortunate Detroiters that do receive EMS assistance, two Detroit hospitals have shuttered their doors and EMS staffing has been slashed. Sorry, but good luck with that.

So where does that leave Detroiters and many other urban cities as well as states like California and Illinois with huge multi billion dollars bailouts and have informal requests into Washington for tax payer federal bailouts?

It leaves the nation grappling with the hard truth that former presidential candidate Mitt Romney attempted to highlight during the 2012 campaign. America’s mainstream media as well as liberal and many moderate Republicans skewered him for telling the truth about the quid pro quo that exists in this “You earned it and I want it nation.” This is the new political landscape that is strangulating America’s self initiative and individual responsibility.

Romney was clear and honest when he stressed, that Obama promised, “Gifts” to minorities, young voters, and women.” Everything is free and the Christmas tree and all that is under it are up for grabs in Obama’s new America.

Romney went on to affirm, “It’s a proven political strategy, which is give a bunch of money to a group and, guess what, they’ll vote for you,” So why was he vilified by the same liberals who have their free abortion pills, free government bacon, free illegal immigration rights hands stuck out?

Here’s a clue that any reasonable as well as responsible doctor would say to a patient that came into their office suffering from a bloated condition of being overweight, and suffering from high blood pressure and eating too much fat; “Go on a diet!

That’s right America, these cities like Detroit that come into America’s waiting room need to be sent a message from 300 plus million citizen doctors. “Our long national nightmare is over!” The prescription is clear, no more financial payouts to cities that spend beyond their means, and whose appetites are larger than their financial ability to pay for the meals they consume.

Here a suggestion for Detroit city councilwoman Watson, stop demanding to stop eat bacon and go on a financial vegan diet. Before you shop at America’s bank, check out your own earning ability and what you can place in your own account. Be tough with the public unions that bleed cash strapped Detroiters dry.

Tell the unions that the gravy train is over, and let Michigan’s Treasurer Andy Dillon do his job to examine the city’s financial books. If need be let the state take over Detroit’s fiscal operations and wring out the misfeasance and habitually mismanaged city government operations.

This is the real message that should be sent back from Obama and his White House Santa Claus enablers who promised lots and lots of free stuff for a simple vote. Instead give them the lump of coal in their Christmas stocking, but for the right reasons.

You see, if Detroiters like JoAnn Watson and Mayor Dave Bing were smart, they would take that lump of coal, and apply tremendous financial responsibility pressure to it over time. Eventually, the lump of coal that appeared nearly worthless will be transformed into a glittering diamond!

That is the Christmas story that Detroiters must hear and that Washington must tell so that the handout government and the nation will eventually have diamonds all over America.

Detroit, America chooses a bacon-free diet for you. Now, it is your choice: lump of coal or a priceless diamond. It’s all what you choose to make of it.

________________________________

(Click – let me know what you think )

Will Speaker Boehner purge of Tea Party membership on key House Committees backfire

Will Speaker Boehner purge of Tea Party membership on key House Committees backfire

While Washington D.C. political leaders battle on Capitol Hill and in the White House over the approaching ominous fiscal cliff, it appears House Speaker John Boehner has shoved conservative House Tea Party members over another type of cliff. In the military it is called “relieved of duty”, and that is exactly what Boehner has done in the 2012 post-election “House” cleaning.

The same conservative Tea Party House member that brought the GOP the largest surge of new members since the 1930’s, has resulted in several key leaders being quietly shown the committee exit door by Boehner. What is truly mystifying to many conservatives across the nation is why now?

With the House republicans retaining the majority and therefore holding onto the speaker’s gavel for Boehner, why not reinforce conservative leadership at a time when an overzealous president is making every attempt to neuter the GOP brand. Obama wants to force Boehner and House Republican eat their “No-tax hike” pledge in the fiscal cliff negotiations!

Deep within the bowels of the White House political office, there has to be plenty back slapping being shared, as they along with Obama watch the House Republicans take their unwanted political cheese bait. While the nation did reelect the president with bait and switch political tactics and epic character assassination methods, the House Republicans were still elected with a majority as well.

This conservative majority of Americans who came to the polls in November, could not imagine that Boehner would weaken his conservative hand, by shedding noted House Tea Party leaders like, Kansas’ Rep. Tim Huelskamp ( R-Kansas), who gained a well-respected reputation for standing up against Planned Parenthood, banning gay marriage and other conservative causes while a state senator. As it turned out, Boehner demonstrated his gratitude by booted him off the Budget and Agriculture Committees.

This may be backroom and insider Capitol Hill politics, but was not changing the status quo of congressional GOP moderation the reason that the over whelming conservative swell of new congressmen and women were to be about after 2010 elections?

Apparently not the case according to congressman, Huelskamp, who stressed to his fellow conservative house caucus members, Tuesday, December 4th, “It confirms, in my mind, Americans’ deepest suspicions about Washington. It’s petty, it’s vindictive, and if you have any conservative principles, you will be punished for it.”

Yes, the punishment was swift and it cut deep into the heart of Tea Party conservative congressional members. Michigan’s own, Tea Party favorite Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), was dispossessed of his Budget committee seat. The purge continued with Arizona Rep. David Schweikert, being relieved of his seat on the powerful on Financial Services Committee. There were many others.

According to Slate, congressman Amash asserted this was this was a plain and simple congressional backroom “purge!”

Now it appears to many Washington pundits, that the president has the upper hand, due to rumblings in the nation’s capitol that some GOP house and senate republicans may cave on the no-tax increase pledge to prevent a fiscal cliff disaster.

The true reality of the fiscal cliff is that conservatives in the house must continue to hold their leadership to the pledge to not give into White House thuggish tactics. Otherwise, the country’s fiscal cliff compromise will unleash an unrestrained 20 plus trillion dollar debt no future generation can bear or afford.

If Boehner goes down this slippery slope with a socialist-minded president determined to gut the GOP for a generation, there will be a reckoning. By 2014, the nation will have a double-dip recession, six years without a budget, and a weakened military. More importantly, in 2014 it will be conservatives fighting back both against a rudderless presidency and moderate House leaders that sold out America’s fiscal future.

Naked weakness displayed by leadership which sacrifices conservative principles is never admired by liberals; it is simply used as a hammer on them. Boehner, wake up and smell the coffee, the aroma that you may smell next is the scent of an open conservative revolt. It may make the 2010 Tea Party surge look like a spring breeze.

The 2014 Tea Party election Tsunami will be steadily gaining strength in the heartland, and this time the Speakership may be stripped from Boehner, due to being “Unfit for Duty.”

 

( Click –  let me know what you think )

Sarah Palin in 2016 Presidential Race is no laughing matter

With Sarah Palin America should be ready for a true conservative voice in the White House

The presidential campaign of 2016 was launched as soon as the last light dimmed on the stage after Mitt Romney gave his concession speech, in losing his presidential bid to Barack Obama. With the new battle now warming up amongst the GOP hierarchy there are many Republican leaders who want to point the party leftward, away from Ronald Reagan and his heir apparent Sarah Palin.

That is correct. There is no stuttering here. Sarah Palin may appear to liberals, leftwing pundits as well as GOP Washington leaders as yesterday’s news. Yet Mitt Romney’s loss was not due to conservative steel in his campaign. What is clear is that nearly two million conservatives did not embrace Romney’s attempt to skedaddle to the middle road by running away from conservative positions and values. They simply stayed home.

Consider the results of Palin’s steadfast 2012 primary season effort as she crisscrossed the nation campaigning on behalf of conservative congressional, senatorial officials. The results of Palin’s efforts are notable, beginning with backing Texas U.S. Senator-elect Ted Cruz. Combine that with eight congressional candidates being elected to congress out of 14, due to Palin’s endorsement.

Now examine Romney’s results. In a general election where Republicans were expected to be more competitive in U.S. Senate races. Republicans actually lost two U.S. Senate seats. There are many who have engaged in a lot of finger pointing in order to place blame for the loss. But the buck does stop at the top with Mitt Romney.

To refresh everyone’s memory, it was Romney and his Boston campaign brain-trust, who said to Palin back in July, “Thanks but no thanks.” They denied her a prime time speaking role before the GOP National Convention and the nation. Mitt was bound and determined to place both Palin and the Tea Party organization supporters on the sidelines and go it alone to seek more moderate political pastures.

Romney may have listened to comedians like Bill Maher and political pundits like Chris Matthew who found no end in skewering the non-candidate Palin during the campaign year. There is a lesson in Romney’s loss that reminds conservatives that Ronald Reagan was the 1976 version of Sarah Palin. He too had his many detractors as well as liberal and Republican pundits who scoffed at Reagan’s notion of a new conservative under current building in America.

Ronald Reagan was held at arm’s length by Washington GOP insiders and derided in liberal circles as a joke. Many in the mainstream media poked fun of his film character that played opposite a Chimpanzee in the 1951 “Bedtime for Bonzo” movie. While the democrats and the Washington insider pundits laughed, Reagan beat President Jimmy Carter with nearly 51 percent of the vote to Carter’s 41 percent in the 1980 presidential election.

Now no one is laughing, including President Barack Obama, who saddles up to Reagan-like comparisons when he’s feeling a little light in the accomplishment department.

It is far more important for Americans who are earnestly concerned about the direction of the nation and its drift away from conservative values. They want to support a true bona fide conservative leader like Reagan.

Sarah Palin like Ronald Reagan understands that presidential elections are won in the grassroots campaign trenches found in Ohio counties and Pennsylvania coal fields. Conservative leadership is nourished in the farmlands of Iowa, Indiana and Illinois and in the kitchens of homes in Nevada and Colorado. Presidential elections are solidified with the commitment of Reagan Democrats in Macomb County, Michigan and Tea Party patriot all over this nation!

It is the power and strength of conservative ideals that when fully embraced will see a repeat of the 2010 elections, where the Tea Party grass roots movement resulted in Republicans gaining 63 congressional seats. Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi loss the Speaker’s gavel to Sarah Palin’s tireless effort to create a new conservative history which is still being made in America.

The keys to the White House Oval Office do not lie in the hands of the political power elite in Washington. They instead belong squarely in the firm grasp of Americans in the Heartland. There, with conservative families in states all over this nation the fate of America will be determined.

In 1980 America no longer wanted to be trapped in what President Carter called a “crisis of confidence” in his now famous July 1979 “Malaise Speech,” Instead, Reagan determined that America wanted to be freed up from government. He firmly gripped the reins away from moderation and liberalism. He grabbed the American microphone and said, “I paid for this microphone.”

America’s conservatives know full well that Sarah Palin also knows how to use a microphone. Much like, Reagan, Palin is committed to let millions across the nation speak through it in 2016!

( Click – Let me know what you think )

Super PAC Spending in Maine’s Senate Race

Despite running against spending from non-local groups, Maine’s Senator-Elect Angus King’s campaign benefitted from money spent on his behalf by Super PAC’s.

King’s campaign was opposed to recent campaign finance reform measures that created Super PAC’s. Super PAC’s do not have to disclose their donors and can contribute unlimited amounts of money. However, they cannot give money directly to a candidate.

“Angus is opposed to the involvement of Super PACs in local elections because they have the capacity to wield unprecedented financial influence in campaigns while also shielding certain donor categories from disclosure,” said campaign policy analyst Eliza Bryant.

During the campaign, King attempted to get Republican candidate Charlie Summers and Democratic candidate Cynthia Dill to sign a pledge stating they wouldn’t take money from Super PAC’s.

“It’s kind of ironic that Angus King has run around the state of Maine descrying outside money and how bad it is, yet he’s down in Michael Bloomberg’s living room two days ago raising a half a million dollars,” said Summers during the campaign.

However, Super PAC’s are prohibited from donating directly to political candidates. They can only donate to campaign committees, which are not allowed to coordinate with a candidate’s campaign. Therefore, King has no control over what money Super PAC’s spend advertising for his campaign.

According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings, Super PAC Citizens Elect spent over a million dollars ($1,234,520) on television advertising, polling and media consulting for Angus King. It spent an additional $193,000 on advertising against Charlie Summers. By contrast, the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, the leading Super PAC contributor supporting Summers, spent only $117,000.

“The majority of the outside money in this election has been spent in attack ads against Angus King. In total, outside influences have spent over $3 million on these ads, comprising 75% of the money that has been spent on ads in this race,” said Bryant.

In total, about $3 million was spent by Super PAC’s on ads against King. About $1.7 million was spent by Super PAC’s on ads against Summers. Of the $6.4 million spent on the race, only about 46% of the money spent by Super PAC’s was used for negative ads against King.

Ambassador Rice Defends White House Watergate Style Lies on Benghazi Cover Up

How could Ambassador Rice explain an attack that she had no personal knowledge of?
Smells like a Watergate style cover up.

U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice has resurfaced after she told America that the attacks and subsequent murders of four American at the U.S. Benghazi Consulate was due to a spontaneous attack because of a You Tube video on five Sunday network news shows.  The nation now knows, and the White House knew then that the story Ambassador Rice spun for America was totally fabricated by the White House.  White House intelligence officials knew the truth within 24 hours.

Could her reemergence into the public eye be due in part to the increasing opposition in congress to her possible nomination by Obama for the soon to be vacated Secretary of State position?  With Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, early attempt to fall on the sword for the president, Rice’s loyalty may yet be her own undoing.

Secretary Clinton had pushed the You Tube narrative and it fell flat after Matthew Olsen, President’s own Director of National Counterterrorism admitted that the attacks on the Benghazi consulate were terrorist and possibly related to Al Qaeda activities. Most importantly, as it turns out, those White House officials as well as State Department and others were quite possibly watching the terrorist attack live via an overhead unmanned drone.

In December, Secretary Clinton will be appearing before congressional intelligence committees to explain her role as well as her and other State Department or White House Benghazi inconsistencies.

Then there are the president’ comments last week when he admitted in a White House press conference that Ambassador Rice was selected because she knew absolutely nothing about the chain of events.  Why would the president of the United States send someone who he admitted, knew absolutely nothing about the security, the attack, the pleas for help and the murders?  How could she explain an attack that she had no personal knowledge of?  Smells like a Watergate style cover up.

This play has been seen before by Americans who endured Watergate and the “long national nightmare which ensued. The nation saw how an administration could hide the truth, deny the act, and then cover up the illegal actions by stonewalling.   Yet in all of the intrigue, congressional investigations and articles of impeachment voted against President Richard Nixon, not one single American citizen lost his life!

So Ambassador Rice, you may feel that mainstream media networks will continue to provide ground cover for your “yes sir, anything sir,” attitude that is totally incredulous, but Americans want accountability.  Obama jetted away for a campaign fundraiser to Las Vegas the very next day, while the families of four Americans were being lied to by the White House.  The president left his credibility in the wind.

So, now Ambassador Rice surfaces in what seems to be an attempt to regurgitate the exact same inconsistencies and cover up narrative as if, telling a lie often enough will suddenly become the truth.  Not this time Ms. Rice.  Not good enough!.  Your oath of office should have more value than protecting a cover story.  Just ask the White House officials who went to jail because they lied to congress about their own culpability in the Watergate cover up.

Again, what was she thinking?

Did Susan Rice truly believe that after the Presidential election, America, the news networks and the congress would go on as business as usual?  Well, Ambassador Rice, America’s business is to find out what the truth really is and why the administration would allow a series of lies to fester in a climate of White House CYA political theatrics.

Four Americans, who had families and had loved ones, only, asked that their Commander in Chief would act like one and defend their lives. The administration reneged on its solemn duty.  The families that saw their loved ones return in coffins deserve more, far, far more than a circle of lies.

Maybe Ms Rice you need to be reminded that these were real people with real families. Their names were: Ambassador Chris Stevens, diplomat Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty. 

These were brave men and not the consequence of “bumps in the road” as President Obama alluded to when discussing the attacks in Benghazi and emerging governments in Arab Spring countries during a Sixty Minutes on September 23rd.  This is not only tragic, it is pitiful.  The families are left this holiday season with more questions, and even more lies about how their decent and honorable family members tragically died.

The truth of Watergate did eventually emerge, a tireless Washington Post and two reporters, relentlessly pursued the truth, when other news organizations did not see a story.  Fox News is that current news organization that is tirelessly pursuing the truth about the White House Benghazi inconsistencies. They are matching up the administration’s changing timelines about what happened, when it happened and why no help arrived on the 11th anniversary of the worse terrorist attack in American history.

History has a way of repeating itself.  Forty years ago, Richard Nixon was reelected president of the United States.  Congress then went to work. Articles of Impeachment were voted on, and well, you know the rest of the story.

Fast forward to 2012, where Obama is doing victory laps and Ambassador Rice is apparently aiming for the Secretary of State seat now being kept warm by Hillary Clinton.  Well if conventional wisdom serves, perhaps, Ambassador Rice should be setting her sights more toward a congressional investigation witness seat.

Congress, the ball is in your court.  Call Ambassador Rice to testify in open hearings to tell the American people what she knew about the talking points, and who gave them to her and what the president knew.

Then after the dust and the lies have settled, The House of Representatives must do its solemn duty and call the president of the United States to testify to congress to tell the truth or face open charges of Impeachment.  

After all, it was Obama who threw down the gauntlet at his November 14th White House press conference and defiantly said, for those, “who has been critical of Rice’s comments, should “go after me.”  Well, Speaker John Boehner, there’s your cue!   America and the families are waiting Speaker John Boehner for the truth!

(  Click – Let me know what you think )

Post Election Obama Support List Misses Groups

From the barackobama.com supporter feedback page

Team Obama sent an email to its many supporters looking for post election feedback. Pundits across the country have acknowledged this campaign was well managed and found its target groups, rallying them to vote in big numbers.

The image at right, taken from the BarackObama.com website, gives the supporter many opportunities to list with which constituency group he or she best identifies. It is interesting to note there is no entry for ‘male’ or ‘Caucasian’. Some might also wonder where the group ‘taxpayer’ is?

Was this an accidental omission or did the campaign not see those who identify themselves as males and or Caucasian as part of their target audience?

« Older Entries