Tag Archives: election

RE: The US Senate Race in Kansas

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

Mr. Orman’s campaign website states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 17th Amendment mandates:

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

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

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

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

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

Like Them or Not, They Do Know How to Message

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

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

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

The issues include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

To borrow from the NRA campaign:

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

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.

Re-Writing Benghazi for Political Purposes

In typical Progressive fashion, the New York Times set itself to re-writing the events of al Qaeda’s 2012 attack on the US embassy compound in Benghazi, Libya; an attack that took the lives of four Americans, including a US ambassador. At any other point in the history of our country, the assassination of a US ambassador by a foe that launched an attack against American citizens the magnitude of September 11, 2001, would be greeted with a united front; embraced as tantamount to an act of war. But the United States has been co-opted by the Progressive Movement and when one of their own is in the White House – or when one of their own is positioning for the White House – history is subject to revision.

Incredibly, the New York Times – long understood by “the aware” to have ceased being a provider of truth and fact, in deference to position and ideology – has issued a “report” that not only flies in the face of the facts (facts acknowledged not only by State Department officials intimate with the events, but by factious elements of al Qaeda in Libya) but go well beyond any semblance of credibility in its conclusions:

“The investigation by The Times shows that …Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.

“The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses…”

This accounting completely disregards many facts that congressional hearings have brought forth from State Department and CIA operatives knowledgeable on the events of September 11, 2012. It also defies testimony by those with infinitely more knowledge on military capabilities than a lone researcher at the New York Times, including elected intelligence committee members from both sides of the political divide:

“‘I dispute that, and the intelligence community, to a large volume, disputes that,’ Michigan GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told FOX News Sunday.  He also repeatedly said the story was ‘not accurate.’

“Rogers was joined on the show by California Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, who said, ‘intelligence indicates Al Qaeda was involved.’”

That said, the efforts by New York Times researcher David D. Kirkpatrick are not centered in confronting the facts of the events of Benghazi, they are focused on changing the narrative ahead of the 2016 General Election.

It cannot be denied that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – now the Progressive front-runner for the Democrat nomination for president two years out from the 2016 General Election – was considerably marginalized by not only ineffective stewardship of the embassy compound in Benghazi in the days prior to the attack, but by the almost non-existent  response during the attack and the incredibly  inept response to the slaughter when called on the carpet by those elected to represent the people. This “triple whammy,” if left “un-spun,” would cripple the candidacy of even the most connected of Progressives – even with the support of a favorable mainstream media.

Enter the New York Times and David D. Kirkpatrick. Devoted sycophants to the Progressive cause, they have embarked on the rejuvenation of Ms. Clinton’s political reputation by attempting to re-write the facts of the event, already proven, in an effort to move her out of the ring of responsibility; in an effort to remove the stain of culpability and responsibility from the fabric of her candidacy. Sadly, even those in the mainstream media who exist on the Right side of the political divide, are tunnel-visioned in their focus; focused on the report and the reports conclusions rather than the motives behind the creation of the report – a work of fiction in its conclusions.

If the establishment Right – both inside the beltway and in the mainstream media, along with the Conservatives in the new media, fail to spotlight this blatant attempt to re-write history; fail to spotlight and explain the motives behind this manipulation of the truth, then we, as a nation, will have fallen – once again – for the Progressive tactic of re-definition of words, facts and events, in their quest to advance the Progressive agenda – and agents who would advance that agenda – into the accepted American lexicon.

The fact of the matter – and this cannot be denied when the facts are acknowledged and accepted – is this: Ms. Clinton failed to answer the “emergency 3am phone call” and because of that people died and an act of war against the United States by our global foe – al Qaeda and the radical Islamists who fuel the movement – was executed. In Ms. Clinton’s failure to act as an adequate steward of the US State Department, and in her refusal to resign for President Obama’s completely disingenuous excuse for the catalyst for the attacks – an excuse that Mr. Kirkpatrick and the New York Times have advanced – she has exposed herself as just another Progressive political minion who will do anything and say anything to gain power; who will lie, cheat, steal and deceive to advance the Progressive cause.

But then, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

In Deep with Michelle Ray

When:Thursday May 16th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: In Deep with Michelle Ray on Blog Talk Radio

What: Join Social Media Director of ConservativeDailyNews.com, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.

Tonight: Jason Pye of United Liberty joins me to discuss the points of contention between libertarians and conservatives

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Benghazi: Progressives Rewrite History in Real Time

If there was ever a moment in time when the American people could collectively glean knowledge from a “teachable moment,” the Obama Administration’s handling of the al Qaeda-related attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya is surely one. From the moment the public became aware of what can only be perceived as an act of war, perpetrated at the hands of an enemy that has officially declared war on the United States and the West, the Obama Administration – Progressives one and all – have engaged in one of their favorite tactics of political opportunism: re-writing history. In this instance, they are doing it in real time; right in front of our faces.

From the moment US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice took to the airwaves to insist that the attacks that took the lives of a US Ambassador and three of his colleagues were, in fact, not a coordinated and planned terrorist assault of a US target of interest, but, rather, a “spontaneous” uprising turned violent, spurred by a third-rate video that literally no one had ever seen, the American people were being subjected to fact manipulation for political purposes. With an election coming up, a terrorist attack did not fit the Obama Campaign’s narrative that, “Osama bin Laden is dead and al Qaeda is on the run.” If the al Qaeda was on the run on September 11, 2012, it was running forward, bayonets fixed, with death in their eyes.

But re-writing history is nothing new to the Progressive Movement. During the time of Woodrow Wilson, Progressives perfected the art of propaganda to such an extent that many in the fascist  movements of Europe – Hitler, the hierarchy of the Nazi Party and even Italy’s Mussolini – took notice; impressed at the effectiveness and results achieved by Wilson’s Administration.

In Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg writes:

“Under President Wilson, progressives perfected the art of government propaganda. Wilson appointed the journalist and former muckraker George Creel to head the Committee on Public Information (CPI), the first modern ministry for propaganda in the Western world. Thus empowered, Creel methodically assembled an army of nearly 100,000 ‘Four Minute Men,’ each trained by the CPI to deliver, at a moment’s notice, four-minute propaganda speeches at town meetings or any other public venues where they might be heard. In 1917–18 alone, these operatives delivered some 7.55 million speeches in 5,200 communities.

“In addition, the CPI produced – with taxpayer dollars – millions of posters, buttons, and pamphlets bearing pro-Wilson, Progressive messages. The CPI’s nearly 100 pamphlets were distributed to approximately 75 million people. ‘It was a fight for the minds of men, for the “conquest of their convictions,” and the battle line ran through every home in every country,’ Creel later recalled…

“The public-relations pioneer Edward Bernays learned the science of what he termed ‘the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses’ during his time on Creel’s committee.”

To that end, it could be argued that Barack Obama’s entire life story is a product of decades of propaganda perfection. From Dreams From My Father to The Audacity of Hope, Mr. Obama’s entire life’s story has been very carefully crafted to present a myth rather than a man; a story rather than a life; an illusion instead of a person; an idea rather than reality. But I digress…

With UN Ambassador Rice’s advancement of the narrative that it was a protest over an inconsequential and poorly made film that served at the genesis for the murders of Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues, the spin of a propaganda machine meant to protect the Obama presidency began. CIA talking points used in a briefing to Obama Administration officials by the Director of National Intelligence were revised no less than two times in less than 24-hours – from 231 words that included references to jihadists and al Qaeda to 91 words that completely expunged all reference to radical Islamist participation, planning or premeditation.

And then the propaganda machine began to hum. From Ambassador Rice to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to high-ranking officials at the Pentagon and CIA, to President Obama himself, the story – the talking points – were so succinctly crafted and choreographed that they could have been loaded into a teleprompter. Well-rehearsed and with authoritative style, each of these political operatives delivered the approved talking points text with conviction, insisting that they, too, were disgusted by the Islamophobic nature of the incendiary video. Mrs. Clinton even went so far as to look the father of slain former-Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods in the eye and say, “We will make sure the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”

Of course, the light of the truth is shining on the facts of this story thanks to many in the new media, talk radio and FOX News, three information outlets routinely lambasted as “bias” and “right-wing” by the Progressive Movement’s many “useful idiots,” both in the mainstream media and the special interest community. And those facts, as they present, depict a much different reality – a much more truthful accounting – of the circumstances surrounding the slaughter in Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues were abandoned; left to fend for themselves and die in a foreign land so that an election could be won.

An equally disturbing truth, albeit not as lethal, is the fact that many serving in the highest elected offices in the United States; the highest offices in the Executive Branch as well as the Legislative Branch, left these people to die because of their political aspirations; so emboldened by their total commitment to a socio-political ideology, so cripplingly devoted to attaining the power that only winning elections can afford, that they blatantly and freely deceive the American people, even about lethal attacks on our diplomats; deadly attacks against our country.

Perhaps even more disturbing is the very real fact that many, if not all, of the people who voted for Mr. Obama in 2012 were led to incorporate the “Obama Campaign Islamophobic film narrative” into their decisions at the ballot box.

The facts being what they are, it cannot be denied that the decision to deceive the American people, the decision to flagrantly lie to the American people – and, in fact, the decision to abandon four Americans as they fought for their very lives – was a decision based on a political motive. The CIA talking points on the slaughter in Benghazi were purposely and grotesquely altered in an effort to deceive the voting public into believing the deadly events of September 11, 2012, were inconsequential to the 2012 Presidential Election; that everything that could have been done to save the lives of four Americans in the service of their country was done; that the hellfire that rained down on Ambassador Christopher Stevens, US Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and former-Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods was the result of “common over-reactionary” violence associated with the hurt feelings of Islamofascists to which the Obama Administration had no recourse.

The decision to lie to the American people about the act of war that happened in Benghazi, Libya, on September 12, 2012, was made to mask the weak and conciliatory foreign policy of a president whose only real-life prerequisite experience for the highest office in the land was that of Chicago community organizer – not a constitutional scholar, not an exceptional legal mind, not a well-seasoned elected public servant, but a failed Chicago Progressive community organizer.

In the book, Fabian Freeway, Rose L. Martin explains the agenda mindset of the founders of the Fabian Socialist Movement, the very movement that would give birth to today’s Progressive Movement. Incidentally, among the founding members of this arrogant and totalitarian movement: George Bernard Shaw:

“From the outset, the nine young men and women who remained to found the Fabian Society had grandiose plans. Quite simply, they wanted to change the world through a species of propaganda termed ‘education,’ which would lead to political action. To a rather astonishing degree they have been successful…”

“Changing the world through a species of propaganda termed ‘education’.” Given the fact that the same people who lied to the American people about the slaughter in Benghazi are the very people in control of our public education system, I would have to say I have never read more chilling words.

When the people we elect to public office are caught lying there should be consequences; a price paid for the cost of the deception. Keeping in mind that the four Americans who died in the slaughter of Benghazi – whose last moments on this earth must have been hopelessly tormenting – have already paid the ultimate price in the service of their country, it is fair to say that, so far, the only price Mr. Obama has been made to pay for his deadly political opportunism is to be re-elected to the Presidency on the wings of a lie.

I’m sure he’ll lose sleep over it.

MN Democrats Trying To Make Voting Easier

imagesAs if the state with the highest voter turnout in the country, nearly 76% in 2012, needed improvement, Democrat legislators in Minnesota are considering proposals to make voting even easier.

Flying under the media radar are two bills aimed at getting even more people to the polls at election time, allowing for early voting and modifying the absenteee voting process. While media attention swirls around the proposed gun control legislation, making its way through committees are proposals that open the floodgates to more fraud and mistakes, and lack any additional oversight or methods for battling Minnesota’s flawed vouching system.

Currently, Minnesota has no identification requirement for a non-registered person if someone whose name is on the registration rolls agrees to “vouch” for that person. The “voucher” signs a statement promising that the person without identification of any kind is eligible to vote. Verification of new voter registrations is not done until weeks after Election Day.

MN Senate File 535 aims to make “early voting” as easy as Election Day voting, and includes allowing vouching during the early voting time period. Early voting is done without election judges or poll watchers. Instead, a ballot board consisting of 2 people, one from each major political party, are responsible for the accurate handling of early voting ballots.

The prevailing reason democrats say Minnesota needs early voting is to make it more “convenient” for voters.

“The reason I think it’s so important is because people already think we have it… people want the convenience of early voting,” said author of SF 535 Democrat Senator Sieben.

Lucy Nieboer, Co-chair of Minnesota Public Interest Research Group at the University of Minnesota said that many students have trouble making it to the polls on Election Day. She spoke of her own difficulty with 2 part time jobs and a full class schedule. Despite her busy life, she found time to register more than 7,000 students last fall and spent nearly 3 hours in the Elections Sub-comittee meeting yesterday.

Several other testifiers in favor of the bill also cited convenience as the primary reason for their support of early voting. None of those in favor addressed the vouching system or adding safeguards against potential fraud or mistakes.

MN Senate File 564 would completely change the absentee voting process in the state and even allows for “permanent absentee voter status,” which means a voter could be sent an absentee ballot each election year without proactively requesting one.

Both bills were “laid over” for possible inclusion in an omnibus bill expected within weeks.
_______________________________________________
More on voter fraud:
Not Just Possible, Voter Fraud Is Easy
But… There Is No Voter Fraud, Right?
Vote Early Vote Often (with video)

To combat voter fraud in Minnesota, click here.
______________________________________________
Follow me on Twitter!! www.twitter.com/erinhaust

Why Some People Voted Democrat

Every now and then I run across a letter to the editor in the newspaper that I truly appreciate, not only do I appreciate the message, but it also gives me a little smile. I recently ran across such a letter that I think will also give you a little smile, you also might appreciate the message. I have a feeling it was sent by a Republican, it just shows we can still have a good sense of humor after losing the election.

 

This is one man’s opinion.

America You Really Blew It

America had the perfect opportunity to turn this country around and get it back on the road to prosperity, but America, you blew it. We had standing in front of us, the perfect man to get us out of the situation we find ourselves in. A leader, a successful businessman, a successful Governor, a good man, an honest man, a thoughtful man, a generous man, an intelligent man, a compassionate man, a hard working get it done type of man, but instead America chose a man who is the complete opposite, what the hell were you thinking?

America, instead you chose a man who chooses to divide our country, a man who said he was going to unite the country, but did the complete opposite. He has been the most divisive President in my life time. America, I believe you elected a man who cares little about its people, but only cares about shoving his idealistic views down our throats. Richard Trumka, head of the most powerful union AFL-CIO said,  “We did deliver those states, Without organized labor, none of those states would have been in the president’s column.” Do you think it is big payback time for the unions? Trumka also said that Obama should raise taxes on the rich, not make cuts to Social Security or Medicaid, and to pay no attention to the deficit, as Trumka goes, so does Obama.

America, you have chosen a man who has done little to restore our economy over the past four years and our standing around the world. You have chosen a man who chooses to lead from behind and who passes the heavy lifting to others, as a matter of fact he is known as a week negotiator and his own party prefers that he stays away from negotiations, what kind of leader is that?

America, did you happen to notice that when hurricane Sandy hit, he flew to New Jersey, took a few pictures, told the press he was going to take care of it and was never seen or heard from again. Two weeks later hundreds of thousands of people still have no lights, no heat, no transportation, no food, yet he promised to take care of it, where is the leadership?

America, You re-elected a man who showed no plan for his next four years except to say forward, if you thought the first four years were bad, the next four years, with him not worrying about having to be re-elected, well all I can say is bend over and spread em, but don’t complain because you asked for it.

America, with the re-election of Obama, you now allow Obamacare to take effect. Because of that, the day after he was re-elected, dozens of companies started to lay off workers, with many other companies to follow. Obamacare was set-up supposedly so everyone would have insurance, but let me ask you; maybe everyone will have an insurance card, but does mean everyone will have access to medical care? Many doctors are leaving the profession and over 27% of doctors say they will not take insurance, only cash. If people would just have taken the time to read the law, they would realize what a disaster it really is.

America, you have re-elected a man who gave us trillion dollar deficits each year he was in office, who has given us over 16 trillion dollars of debt, who gave America its first credit down grade in our nation’s history, who continues to grow government and keeps borrowing money from other countries to fuel his spending habits. Oh, and by the way, the unemployment rate is still higher today than when he took office, after four years and you can expect it to go higher.  You call that leadership?

America, what else can I say, you really blew it. You could have given the reins to a man who would have brought true hope and prosperity to this country, but instead you gave them to a man who after four years showed you who he was and that he was incapable of doing the job, now we all have to pay.

If you had any doubts before if Obama was a Socialist Marxist at heart, wait and see what he has in store for his second term with a boat load of new Government regulation.

This is a special note to all the so-called Republicans and Conservatives out there who complained about Obama for four years, then chose not to vote because you did not like Romney. I blame you more than anyone else, from here on out you have no right to complain about Obama, because you are the ones that put him back in office.

 

This is one man’s opinion.

In Deep with Michelle Ray – What the #$!#@ Happened?

When: Thursday, November 8th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: In Deep with Michelle Ray on Blog Talk Radio

What: Join Social Media Director of ConservativeDailyNews.com, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.

Tonight: Come hang out with me while I give my perspective of what went wrong with Romney’s campaign and how the pundits on the Right could have been so wrong. I will also spend some time talking about my Election Aftermath post today and why I was so motivated to write it, as well as present the flip-side argument

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

U.S Voters Don’t Know Who Elects the President

Amazingly sad.

From the YouTube Description:

Luke Rudkowski hits the streets of NYC again to find out if the voting public knows anything about the U.S Electoral College system. The interviews are very telling with some people knowing about the system while others got it confused with college, the institution of learning. This video was shot November 5th of this year 9pm EST in Time Square NYC. We swear that no intelligent people were edited out of this video, this is a fair representation of the voting public.

One Last Word to the Troops Before the Election

As President Obama ends his bitter and petty campaign of character assassination against his challenger Mitt Romney, one is struck by just how low the lofty orator has fallen from his 2008 bid. The erstwhile freshman Senator rode into office on a wave of disingenuous half-truths and outright lies promising “hope and change.” But at least Obama sounded vaguely optimistic and sunny while he lied — repeatedly — to voters’ faces.

About ending the War in Iraq in 16 months. About bringing the War in Afghanistan to a speedy close. About shuttering Guantanamo Bay. About extraordinary rendition. About cutting the deficit in half. About the need to curb healthcare spending. About not taxing the middle class. About becoming a post-partisan president.

Instead, he extended the War in Iraq to double his pledged time. He has our troops in Afghanistan at least until 2014, if not until 2024. He launched a new war in Libya, without Congressional authorization. He couldn’t bring himself to call America’s enemies ‘terrorists’ at Fort Hood and Benghazi.

On the economy, he tripled the deficit, starting with the 2009 Democrat-drafted budget he signed. Then he passed Obamacare, which has exploded to three times original cost estimates. He passed taxes on the middle class dozens of times. He hasn’t passed a budget at all in nearly three years. And then he recently implored his Democrat base to exact “revenge” on their opponents (for paying for all the Democrats’ compassionate social welfare programs, presumably.)

The suddenly churlish Obama then scapegoated former President Bush for the “same old” disastrous economics, apparently the one that led to 52 straight months of job growth. And at least Bush warned about the coming housing bubble burst. But whatever the legend is around liberal watercoolers to this day, President Bush did not save a free market, because there was no free market to begin with — especially when it came to housing mortgages.

But the GOP is still somehow to blame for the poor economy in Democrat voters’ minds, because we are talking about a right-wing party that is so insidious and formidable in Democrat mythology that not a single Republican voted for Obamacare and the bill still passed easily. Then the nefarious law was rubber-stamped by a Republican-appointed chief justice who bought a line about the Obamatax that not even the president’s council believed. The government lawyers argued it both was and was not a tax and apparently won. Heads we win, tails you lose.

So how are Republicans rigging the system? How can the GOP be considered the establishment? Some Republicans are lazy and apathetic, but they are not the face of big government, not even big business. The Democrats have handed trillions to big business on a silver platter, whether we are talking about green subsidies or flat-out stimulus slush. But the left still cries about “tax cuts for the wealthy,” as if they have prima nocta to screw taxpayers, rather than allow them to reward businesses with their hard-earned cash.

But maybe that’s what separates us and them the most, meaning conservatives and liberals. We assume that life is hard work, overcoming adversity, and dealing with unpleasant realities. The Democrats want to grant a make-believe generous and compassionate government with the power to control everything in the world. Oh sorry, make things “fair.”

What isn’t “fair” is when politicians and their crony capitalist allies determine what we do with our lives: in business, in society, in our homes. And cutting taxes is returning more power to us, to the market. De-regulating is returning more power to us, to the consumers. The Republican Party is not the establishment party, even if it concedes far too often to the political left and special interests. It is largely unprincipled, yielding ground to the entitlement state, and even swelling it drastically on occasion. It is far from ideal; even seriously flawed.

Tomorrow, I am voting Republican in the biggest race of my lifetime to limit the damage the Democrats can do, and voting Libertarian anywhere else I can to voice my contempt and disgust for the two-party status quo. People believe they can change the system by simply registering their objection to it by voting Gary Johnson. I disagree. I don’t think this will do anything but lead to a worse income in both the short-term and long-term.

We need to engage and fundamentally transform the Republican Party, and use it as a tool to advance freedom, even if that means exposing and throwing out any politician that is against the cause of liberty. We cannot just throw up our hands and abandon the best possible chance to advance our interests; even if it is incremental change, and even if it turns out to be too little, too late.

We on the conservatarian side of things have to feel good about New Media’s chances to change the culture, and thereby, change the conversation in a way that makes it harder for both parties to damage our freedoms.

We don’t need a political messiah in this election; what we need is time. Mitt Romney gives us that.

Note: Some of the documentation for this article’s claims can be found here: “1001 Reasons to Vote Against Barack Obama.”

Tonight on the Dark Side with Kira Davis

11/4/12  Two days and counting!!!! Most polls are indicating a dead heat. Will election night be too close to call until the end, or are we in for a surprise? I’ll also break down some of the propositions on the California ballot, and as usual Louis Fowler will stop by to talk entertainment. Two days, folks! Tune in tonight at 10pm ET/7pm Pacific on the CDNews Network on BlogTalk Radio.

UPDATE: Listen to a replay here or follow the link to download.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio
« Older Entries