Do not listen to the nay sayers and doomsday predictors… Now is the time to stand-up and fight. A coalition of conservative voices, fiscal conservatives, Constitutionalists, independent thinkers and Libertarians are on the verge of taking over the Republican Party and the taste for freedom is in the air around the world, like in Egypt… Yet OBAMA OFFICIALS to Offer Muslim Brotherhood Top Positions in Egyptian Government (Video)
The fight and focus for the revitalization of the Republican Party and to save America must be on the forefront and begin with the 2014 Election and then be continued through the 2016 Election. The Democrat party is very aware of that and preparing for those battles and all the smaller ones leading up to the elections is at least part of what has caused many of the scandals plaguing the Obama Administration… as more and more people are speaking up and in-turn waking up every day. The IRS investigations, auditing and holding up of ‘tax exempt status’ of hundreds of conservative and religious groups, as well as already existing groups like the Leadership Institute and the Claire Booth Luce Organization, that affected the outcome of the 2012 Election ‘was not’ an accident, just as the subversion of information regarding the Benghazi Attack including the purposeful hiding of witnesses is not a accident. And sadly some of this comes from support of members in both parties.
It is time to clean house in the Republican Party and as Beck says, we have never been closer to taking over the reins. It is time for every concerned American to step up their efforts or start getting involved in the name of truth, honest and fair elections, the Constitution, a government that represents the interests of the people and a clear choice between two parties of differing ideologies.
As Beck mentions in the video, we are at the point where the Republican Party replaced the Whigs, resulting in the election of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln.
The Whig Party: In 1834 political opponents of President Andrew Jackson organized a new party to contest Jacksonian Democrats nationally and in the states. Guided by their most prominent leader, Henry Clay, they called themselves Whigs-the name of the English antimonarchist party-the better to stigmatize the seventh president as 'King Andrew.' They were immediately derided by the Jacksonian Democrats as a party devoted to the interests of wealth and aristocracy, a charge they were never able to shake completely. Yet during the party's brief life, it managed to win support from diverse economic groups in all sections and to hold its own in presidential elections.
Although unable to unite behind a single candidate in 1836, thus permitting Jackson's handpicked successor Martin Van Buren to obtain an electoral majority, the Whigs won a popular vote for their candidates that was close to the popular tally for the Democrats. And in 1840 and 1848, the party captured the White House. Their only loss in a presidential election during the decade occurred in 1844 when Clay lost by a hair to the Democrats' dark horse James K. Polk, who had greater appeal to voters favoring the expansion both of territory and slavery. But in 1852, as slavery's expansion became the great issue of American politics, the Whigs suffered a drastic decline in popularity. And by 1854 they had given up the ghost, no longer able to hold the support of 'cotton Whigs,' who found a more congenial political home in the Democratic party, or of 'conscience Whigs,' who helped form the new Republican party.
Historians have interpreted the Whigs in strikingly different ways. They have been seen as champions of banks, business, corporations, economic growth, the positive liberal state, humanitarian reform, and morality in politics, and as opponents of expansionism, executive tyranny, states' rights, labor, and the democratic suffrage, among other things. These dissimilar assessments are unsurprising given the heterogeneity of the party itself, in its leaders, policies and programs, political style, and rank-and-file supporters.
The Whig party was founded by individuals united only in their antagonism to Jackson's war on the Second Bank of the United States and his high-handed measures in waging that war and ignoring Supreme Court decisions, the Constitution, and Indian rights embodied in federal treaties. Beyond that, however, there were Whigs and Whigs. Some played the demagogic anti-Catholic game; others scorned it. Some spoke critically of working people; others, admiringly. Detailed studies of the Whig party in the states and biographies of such Whig leaders as Clay, William Seward, Daniel Webster, and Horace Greeley reveal dissimilar policies from one state to another and important differences in the character, beliefs, and actions of the leaders. Thurlow Weed was much more opportunistic than his New York State colleague Seward. Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania was more high-minded and not nearly as pragmatic as Clay of Kentucky. For all Clay's political flexibility and his lust for the presidency, he could still inspire the young congressman from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln.
The tendency of Whig officeholders to vote as a bloc on certain issues, in opposition to Democratic blocs, helps account for the tendency of some historians to exaggerate the extent and depth of Whig single-mindedness. In Congress, Whigs supported the Second Bank of the United States, a high tariff, distribution of land revenues to the states, relief legislation to mitigate the effects of the great depression that followed the financial panics of 1837 and 1839, and federal reapportionment of House seats (a 'reform' likely to enlarge Whig representation in Congress). Studies of voting patterns in the states reveal Whig support of banks, limited liability for corporations, prison reform, educational reform, abolition of capital punishment, and temperance. Although the Whig party was hardly an antislavery party, free blacks and abolitionists overwhelmingly preferred it to more ardently proslavery Jacksonian Democrats.
The old notion propagated by the party's enemies-that the Whigs drew their support primarily from the rich and the well-to-do-has been sharply modified by modern scholarship. The relatively few rich men in the country did prefer Whigs to Democrats, but by a modest margin. Whigs fared well at the polls among people of all classes in economically dynamic communities heavily engaged in commerce. Jacksonian propaganda did induce many people to regard the Whigs as an upper-class party (not organized working men, however, whose leaders dismissed both Democrats and Whigs as 'humbugs'). Yet Whigs could win presidential elections, governorships, and state legislature majorities only because they attracted mass support. Although they received the votes of many small farmers, shopkeepers, clerks, and artisans, they appear to have appealed particularly to what some modern historians call distinctive ethnocultural groups: evangelical as opposed to liturgical Protestants; moralists and abstainers; persons unhappy with brutal treatment of blacks and Native Americans. In some states Whig leaders seemed so critical of political parties that they appeared to be religious zealots rather than party leaders. Yet for all their antiparty rhetoric, Whigs were as realistic and efficiently organized as their Democratic opponents.
American major parties develop their own distinctive auras that are no less real for being intangible and unmeasurable. In that time, Whig and Democratic leaders were strikingly similar in such significant characteristics as wealth, occupational prestige, a fundamentally conservative social ideology, materialism, and opportunism. These similarities help explain why both major parties were attractive to moneyed men. But it is unwise to discount the significance of the unique blending of moral values and social philosophies that some imaginative historians have recently discerned in Whig leaders, a blending that helps account for the Whigs' special appeal to one rather than another kind of individual.
Ultimately, however, the Whigs are best understood as an American major party trying to be many things to many men, ready to abandon one deeply held 'conviction' for another in the drive for political power. The party died not because its unique aura no longer appealed to voters but because it could not cope effectively or persuasively with some of the issues of the time.
The Democrat Party has already undergone its own change, morphing from the Democrat Party of our grandfathers to the Progressive Party that it is today. But because the fresh voices on the right have been thwarted from both sides and were delayed in breaking out of their cocoon, leaving the Republican Establishment, that is all too much like their Democrat counterparts, in power, the opportunity of a real election choice has been stolen from the American people for several cycles now.
And it is the fresh voices within the Republican Party that are rising that the Progressive left fears, because they are an honest alternative choice for Americans. It is why both the left and the GOP leadership fear (feared) and demonized the Tea Party. It is why they feared Sarah Palin and why the biased left media created Palin Derangement Syndrome, based on lies, manipulation, and distortions, that little by little have bubbled to the surface in various forms of exonerations proving that Palin was purposely set-up by the left as well as GOP leadership. It is also why the mainstream media ignores, minimizes coverage and distorts the words and accomplishments of other politicians like Senators Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee; Mayor and Congressional candidate Mia Love; Representatives Michelle Bachmann, Jason Chaffetz and a long list of others; plus most anyone who speaks out against the machine that is in place.
It is also time to put the in-fighting behind us. The bitter 2012 primary debates on the Republican side certainly didn’t help anyone. And the arguments between people who are generally on the same side need to stop as well. Time to see and focus on the bigger picture. For those not aware, there has been an on-going, mostly one-sided feud between Mark Levin and Glenn Beck. This past week Mark Levin recognized on-air that he got a nice note from Glenn Beck the other day and called it an “absolute class act”. He went on to say:
“I think it’s long over due that Glenn Beck and I do what we can in our own roles to help save the country and restore the Republic.”
Side Note: The one sided feud began in 2010 over the direction of the conservative movement. Glenn was bashing progressive republicans and Mark Levin was focused on winning back the House. They just saw things differently. It took off after Glenn Beck’s CPAC speech. But it was mostly Mark Levin ranting about Glenn. Glenn never went after Levin.
None of us agree with anyone all of the time. If we can agree most of the time there is room for compromise to focus on the bigger issues and common enemies, a concept that President Ronald Reagan firmly believed in. He was a master of constructive compromise. Far too many Conservatives, Libertarians, Evangelicals, Independents, and just plain concerned patriotic Americans forgot this in 2012.
Get-involved!! Educate yourself and then share what you have learned… not what the mainstream media is feeding you… with friends, family, neighbors and anyone who will listen, however hesitantly. Get involved in a campaign. Support issues and candidates locally, statewide and nationally with funds, volunteering or just sharing their message. Run yourself. Start a blog. Be present in the truth and if you are so inclined.. pray.
Now is the time to stand-up for choice, freedom, America and fresh voices within the Republican Party!!
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin posted a lengthy message to her Facebook wall Thursday criticizing the Obama administration for its handling the Benghazi, IRS, and Associated Press phone records scandals:
Scandalous Hat Trick
Mr. President, when it rains it pours, but most Americans hold their own umbrellas. Today in the Rose Garden you dismissed the idea of a Special Counsel to investigate the IRS scandal. With that, your galling political hubris shined bright in the midst of today’s dark clouds.
Mr. President, how can we trust your Justice Department to conduct an independent investigation when there is a systemic violation of the Hatch Act throughout your administration?
Surely you are aware that the Hatch Act prevents certain federal employees from engaging in political activity. Specifically, it’s illegal for these federal employees to engage in action in support of or in opposition to a political party, a candidate for partisan political office, or a partisan political group.
Yet that is exactly what’s happened within the IRS, the Justice Department, and in the Benghazi cover-up. This scandalous hat trick is on your watch. It is not believable that you knew nothing about Obama administration actions in dealing with these scandals. And in regards to Benghazi, when you should have taken appropriate action to save American lives – for instance by calling in the Marines – you were AWOL. Just weeks before the election your team scrubbed the Benghazi talking points in 12 different versions, lied to the American people about some YouTube video being to blame for the deaths of brave Americans who put our country first, and you prove Michael Barone right when he writes, “What actually happened in Benghazi was out of sync with the Obama campaign line.” That’s why you all did what you did. Pure raw politics were at play during a horrific time of loss.
For more evidence of Hatch Act violations right under your nose, simply consider DOJ’s “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into the free press. Do you think they picked up some political talk when tapping the phones in the House press gallery?
Your team is out of control. Those who cannot remember the past and learn from it are doomed to repeat it, and that is exactly what is happening. Look back exactly 40 years ago this week and apply that disheartening chapter of American history to the team you’ve chosen and lead today.
Some of us warned America; we cautioned voters in 2008 that a community organizer with no executive experience and no sense of accountability would be a very poor choice for the nation’s top management position.
Mr. President, you said today that you have “complete confidence” in the Attorney General. America doesn’t. Eric Holder needs to appoint an unbiased Special Counsel to investigate the illegal political action of this administration. And then Eric Holder needs to resign.
Most Americans see ominous dark clouds looming beyond the White House Rose Garden, Mr. President. They’ll roll away only when light is shined on the Obama administration’s antics, and America will only recover when you cease avoiding responsibility in this mission of yours to fundamentally transform America. For that to happen, the press had better learn from their experiences of being duped and provide a deserving public fairer, more intelligent coverage.
Speaking of coverage, glad you finally called in the Marines… shame it was just to hold your umbrella.
RUSH: So yesterday I was openly complaining, some might even say whining, that I was gonna have to watch the State of the Union show. It was gonna be sickening to listen to what was being said and then to watch members of Congress stand up and essentially applaud the destruction of the country. And I talked to a bunch of people who said, "I'm not watching. I'm not gonna watch it. Not gonna spend any time on it." And I said, "Well, I have to." It reminds me of the days when I was in school and everybody told me they weren't doing their homework, so I didn't, either. Turns out they were lying. They all did their homework and I got D's and F's. Well, everybody that told me they weren't gonna watch the State of the Union ended up watching it.
I'll tell you what I thought of it, folks. I disagreed with everything the president said pretty much, in terms of his policies. I disagreed with everything he said, but it was a great speech. I liked the speech and you know what I really liked? I liked that part where he said that we all have to get along and work together to help people. I really liked that. That really scored with me. And I was watching the Frank Luntz focus group after the State of the Union speech and after Marco Rubio's response, it was on Hannity on the Fox News Channel. He had this focus group, and, if you didn't see it, it's too bad. If you did, you were looking at the very definition of low-information voters. It's amazing. They had the same reaction I had.
They disagreed with pretty much everything Obama said, policy-wise, but they supported him, and they thought it was a great speech, and they liked the part about everybody working together to get along. They liked the fact that he's gonna tackle the deficit. They liked the fact that he's gonna create jobs. They didn't agree with how he was gonna do it, but they liked that he's going to. They liked that he's gonna reduce the deficit. They liked the fact that he's gonna bring the debt down. They liked the fact that health care costs are gonna come down. Did you know that? Health care costs are already coming down and I found myself agreeing. I thought it was cool. I disagreed with, you know, how the president said he's gonna do it.
Look, I had a bit of a problem with the president on global warming where he basically said that if Congress doesn't act, he will. But I do think we need to deal with global warming. Everybody knows that. I didn't agree with much, but I liked the speech. I was very, very supportive. And Obamacare, the costs are coming down. That's good. I'm very happy about that. The debt, deficit is coming down. We're already over halfway to the targeted debt reduction of $4 trillion. So at least somebody's working on this stuff and somebody's trying to make it happen. I wasn't crazy about some of the things I heard the president say on taxes, but I had to acknowledge that the rich have been getting away with murder all these years. It's about time somebody tried to make everything fair, and who could oppose fairness.
You know, yesterday we had the Gallup poll, and on every issue except one -- and I forget what the one issue was -- every issue, every policy, by vast majority numbers, the American people disagree with Obama. A vast majority disagree with Obama on every policy. I mean, it's not close. In some cases, the numbers of people that disagree are in the 60 percentages, and the people agree with Obama are in the forties. But they liked the speech last night. They thought it was exactly what was called for.
Now, the New York Times has a story today. "Polls Show Dissatisfaction With Country's Direction, but Support for Obama's Agenda -- Just ahead of President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday night, new polls find continued public dissatisfaction with the direction of the country, yet support for several of the policies the president has said he will push in his second term." And that's what I saw in the focus group last night on Frank Luntz. They don't like the way the country's going but, man, they love what Obama's doing about it. Well, I know folks, don't ask me. I'm just telling you what I saw, what I heard, and what's in the news. It's a little conflicting. The Gallup poll people do disagree with Obama issue by issue by issue.
The New York Times says there is support for Obama's agenda but dissatisfaction with the way the country's going. See, those are two separate things. This is what we are going to have to learn to understand. Obama's agenda doesn't have anything to do with the country's direction. As far as the low-information voter is concerned, they're two separate things: support for Obama's agenda but dissatisfaction with the country's direction.
Now, you and I might say, "Well, wait a second now. The country's direction is precisely related to Obama's agenda." But no! We would be terribly wrong. Obama's agenda has nothing to do with the country's direction. Obama's agenda is about fixing it, and people support it. Now, this is also a mendacious media at work because this is exactly the opposite of what Gallup reported the day before that we discussed.
According to Gallup, the American public disapproves of every Obama policy except for his handling of defense. But the New York Times has this story that's just the exact opposite. Polls show dissatisfaction with country's direction but support for Obama's agenda. Two separate things. The Frank Luntz focus group was pretty much the same thing. They pretty much disagreed with what they heard last night in policy, but they liked the speech and they like what Obama said.
They like that somebody's working on it and they want everybody to work together. The Obama claim that the Affordable Care Act is already slowing health care costs? Now, you and I would hear something like that that the president said that last night... "Already the Affordable Care Act is helping to slow the growth of health care costs." I know your reaction was probably the same as mine when you heard that. It's just another bald-, bold-faced lie. The truth of the matter is that Obamacare has not even been fully implemented!
How can you give credit to Obamacare for slowing health care costs when it's yet to be enacted? What is slowing health care costs, to the extent that they're slowing down, is the recession -- and that's even debatable. But, you know, in a couple of isolated areas, not very many, you can see where health care costs a little bit less than it has been costing. But that's due to the recession. It has nothing to do with Obama. But this is way too much information to the low-information voter. You can't persuade them with that.
So what I decided to do, ladies and gentlemen, is we got hold of Paul Shanklin and we decided to do a condensed version of last night's State of the Union. This is an honest, condensed version of last night's State of the Union...
JOHNNY DONOVAN: (Hail to the Chief) And now, the honest, condensed version of President Obama's State of the Union Address.
PAUL SHANKLIN AS OBAMA: My fellow Americans, fifty-one years ago, John F. Kennedy said something profound at his State of the Union. I... will not. Thanks to the grit and determination of the American people, there isn't enough progress to my agenda. Corporate profits are evil, and we need a middle class to tax. It is our unfinished task to restore the basic bargain that built this country: The idea that if you work hard, you can get ahead no matter whatcha look like or how you sneaked in or who you love in a cheap motel -- or whether you have a thing for feathers, high heels, or wigs with bangs.
Now, the American people don't expect us to solve every problem. I haven't solved any, so don't worry. But they do expect us to put the nation's interests before our party. You first! In 2011, Congress passed my plan to have sudden, harsh, arbitrary cuts called a "sequester" that would jeopardize our military readiness, and would most certainly slow our recovery and cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. So let's set party interests aside, and work to pass a solution to end the sequester crisis I manufactured right here in America.
The biggest driver of our long-term debt is old people. The Unaffordable Care Act is slowing their access to medical care, but not fast enough. We must do more! Now, our government shouldn't make promises we can't keep, but we must keep the ones we already made -- unless it was to turn a budget in on time after four years. Every day I ask myself three questions about this nation: "How do we attract more jobs to our shores?" "How do we equip our people with skills they need to get those jobs?" and "How to do we make sure that hard work leads to a decent living?"
Well... Well, how do we?
We now produce more oil and gas right here in America, so we must do more to combat climate change -- and if Congress won't act, I will do what I want, whenever I want. Why does Congress even exist? We need more infrastructure like roads and bridges! (Sorry. Heh, heh. I couldn't help myself.) Today, too many families with solid credit are being turned down for home loans because of unnecessary regulation, and I just now noticed.
So, uh, free pre-school for everybody! Now... Now, we all know what needs to be done. Send me a comprehensive immigration bill, in Spanish, and I will sign it. There are still places in America where you can't get ahead, like Chicago. America will run away in Afghanistan and declare victory no matter what happens. Today, the organization that attacked us on 9/11 -- no, not Benghazi; the other 9/11 -- is a shadow of its former self.
Cyber attacks are bad. There are many places where people live on little more than a dollar a day. Ask my brother George. Now, women deserve combat duty. And honestly, people: Just give up your guns and we'll protect you about as well as we can protect a small child on a playground in Chicago where they have plenty of gun control already. In closing, my fellow Americans, we are citizens. Honest. I have the birth certificates for both of us! God bless you, and God help the United States of America, because I won't.
(Hail to the Chief)
Thank you.
RUSH: And there you have it, my friends, our State of the Union condensed version for those of you who missed it last night. (interruption) No, I'm being entirely serious. Snerdley is scratching his head, saying, "What are you up to?" I'm not up to anything. I'm telling you exactly how the speech was perceived last night. A majority of Americans, depending on where you look, either do or don't like Obama's policies.
But they really liked the speech and they liked that he's working on this stuff. They like that he's attacking the deficit. They like that he's fixing health care. They like that he's doing all this and they hope everybody works together on it. That's what they really want. They want everybody to join hands. I saw it in the Luntz focus group. They want everybody to work together -- everybody come together -- get along and fix these problems, because we have a debt problem.
Obama's working on it, and that's good. We've got a health care problem and Obama's working on it. We've got a unemployment problem. Obama's working on it. He's got a program for it. But the thing that you gotta take away, the thing that you must understand about last night that defines everything: There is massive dissatisfaction with the country's direction. The vast majority of the American people do not like the direction in which the country is going, while at the same time there is overwhelming support for Barack Obama's agenda.
Which means that, to the vast majority of American voters, there is no relationship whatsoever between Obama's agenda and the direction of the country.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I realize in the opening segments of the broadcast that I had a little fun with this, but I do want to tell you something here that has been sort of an eye opener for me. Now, it may have been something that you understood long ago. It may have been something you put together long ago. I must confess that I only just realized this today. And it's about trying to understand how could so many people say they disagree with Obama's policies and yet reelect him. I know that you and I have expressed our puzzlement and our curiosity over the great disconnect there is in this country. The people that vote for Obama don't like where we're going, the direction of the country, the policies of Obama, yet he wins elections.
So we've all been taking our stabs at trying to explain why. Well, he won reelection because he did such a good job of demonizing Romney that he made everybody afraid to vote for Romney and they settled and just voted for Obama, vote for the guy who's already there, at least he's a known quantity. But the New York Times story today finally opens my eyes to what we're dealing with, at least for me. And, as I say, you may have understood this long ago. "Polls Show Dissatisfaction With Country's Direction, but Support for Obama's Agenda."
Now, you and I, in what I would call the high-information voter sector, understand what a giant disconnect that is. How in the world can people be dissatisfied with the country's direction while at the same time support the very agenda that's causing it? This just doesn't compute to you and me. We recognize that it is Obama's agenda which is leading to the problems this country has and thus the dissatisfaction that people have regarding the country's direction. But the majority of people who vote, there is no connection of those two things whatsoever. They support Obama's agenda, and they are terribly unhappy about the direction of the country, and, therefore, they do not associate Obama's agenda or his policies with the direction of the country.
They do not associate Obama's policies with what has happened to the country. They don't associate all the spending and all the debt with the lack of jobs. They don't make that connection, they don't see any connection, they don't see it at all. Now, to me this is an eye-opener, and it's going to force me to assess exactly how to go forward here in dealing with these people. The idea is to persuade them. I mean, they are the low-information voters.
Now, if they're unhappy with the economy, if they're unhappy with jobs, if they're unhappy with the debt, if they're unhappy with the housing market and yet support Obama's agenda, then they obviously do not connect Obama's policies as being in any way related to or responsible for the country's direction that they don't like, which means a number of things. It means that they see Obama as working really hard to try to fix everything, rather than Obama as the reason for things worsening. They just do not see that. And to you and me it's a slam dunk. It's one plus one is two. These are people, outcome-based education, two plus two is five and we'll give 'em an A for trying. They don't see it.
So Obama is not at all connected to the tragic destruction of this country. He is seen as somebody who wants to fix it. It's the same thing as people seeing Colonel Sanders as a guy running a hospital to save chickens. Wouldn't compute. It wouldn't make any sense. But that's how he's viewed. Now, maybe one reason is that he's successfully blamed Bush all these years and the exit polling data last November, vast majority of people still do blame Bush for the economy, but it's more than that. It's that Obama never, ever, allows himself to be seen as governing. He is constantly campaigning.
Obama is constantly seen as in competition with what's happening in Washington. It is though there are straw men. There are men behind curtains. There are invisible, evil people doing all this to the country. He's trying to expose them and he's working very hard. Romney is one of them. Bush was one of them. There are a bunch of other people, we don't know who they are. But Obama is trying to find them. He's trying to expose them and trying to fix all this. Obama is not seen as the guy behind the curtains pulling the levers. Obama is not seen as the guy who does not like the way the country was founded and is trying to take this country in a different direction. He's not seen at all in the way he really is. It can't all be because of the media.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: You may have figured this out long ago, but it just hit me -- and if you figured it out long ago and you've been trying to get through here and tell me, I wish you'd have gotten through. For those of you who figured it out and I didn't, I'm just now getting to it. I apologize for being a late arrival to the party, but now -- now -- it all makes sense. For five years Obama has never once allowed himself to be seen as governing.
He is constantly campaigning against mysterious forces who have ill intentions trying to harm you and this great country. There are these figures behind the screen, behind the curtain. Romney was one. Bush was one. There are others. Obama's trying to expose them. Throughout history dictators, for example, have never really been blamed for the bad things that happened in their countries. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, none of them were blamed by the rank-and-file citizenry.
They were, instead, the leaders of the revolution!
They were the great figures trying to change all the evil that was happening to everybody. Here's Obama. Let me prove this to you. I have for you a little sound bite, 36 seconds, of people from the Frank Luntz focus group on Fox last night. Every one of these people voted for Mitt Romney. These are swing voters in Santa Monica. Now, Santa Monica's a liberal hotbed, but every one of these people that you hear voted for Mitt Romney, and they are talking about their perception of last night's State of the Union speech.
LUNTZ: From the Romney people, what did you like about Barack Obama's State of the Union Address? A couple of you...
WOMAN: I liked his immigration that he talked about putting people at the back of the line and so that they didn't get preferential treatment just because they were here.
MAN: I think education, the reform he was talking about -- affordability and making it efficient -- I think that's gonna... Education all starts from education, really.
LUNTZ: One more...
WOMAN: I like how he spoke of bipartisanship and working with Congress and moving the country forward by working together.
LUNTZ: Does he mean it?
WOMAN: I believe he means it.
LUNTZ: How many of you believe he means it, that he's gonna be more bipartisan this term than he was before?
WOMAN: He means it!
RUSH: Those people all voted for Romney, and they -- even the people that voted for Romney -- do not associate Obama with any of the problems in the country. This is what you and I are gonna have to learn and learn fast. No matter what is said, no matter what evidence happens, no matter what's reported, it will not be possible to connect Obama to the negativity that's happening in the country today because he's campaigning against it himself. That's the reason for the perpetual, never-ending campaign. It is why, in eight years, he will never allow himself for even one day to be seen as actually governing or presiding over any of this.
He's always going to be running against the very things he's doing.
If you missed President Obama’s State of the Union address last night, you didn’t miss much – especially if you watched any of his past four State of the Union addresses.
We heard the same recycled rhetoric, and we heard his Orwellian declaration that the cornucopia of new federal programs he proposed, as well as his intention to eradicate world poverty, wouldn’t “increase our deficit by a single dime.”
Of course, he glossed over the inconvenient facts. He boasted about job creation, but didn’t mention that real unemployment is higher today than when he took office. He touted all those still undiscovered “clean energy” jobs without mentioning the tens of thousands of real jobs the Keystone Pipeline will create if he would simply allow it to be built. He sang of new energy development, but didn’t mention that new offshore leases for oil and natural gas drilling have declined a decimating 61% under his administration.
He talked about “helping” to build “a thriving middle class,” but didn’t address how the middle class is actually faring under his economic stewardship. This is important – his deception must be addressed: under his leadership, middle class families have seen the average price per gallon of gas increase 96%, the average cost of family health care premiums rise 24%, the annual cost per household from federal regulations rise to over $15,000, and real median household income decline $4,520. If this is what happens when he “helps” the middle class, then please, Mr. President, we implore you to stop “helping” us.
He talked about a “balanced approach to deficit reduction” without mentioning that $5.9 trillion has already been added to the debt since he took office. We’re $16.5 trillion in debt and he keeps digging the hole deeper! He didn’t mention his record trillion dollar deficits or the fact that his last proposed budget would add $9.2 trillion to the debt through 2022. His Democrat-controlled Senate hasn’t passed a budget in four years. That’s obviously not “responsible” or “balanced.” He said, “We can’t cut our way to prosperity.” Well, we definitely can’t get there by borrowing and spending money we don’t have on his “investments” that don’t work. If indiscriminately borrowing and spending money led to prosperity, then bankruptcy would be a sign of economic strength. But it isn’t.
A State of the Union address should give us a true picture of the direction in which we are headed. But we didn’t get the truth last night. And it WAS Orwellian.
What is the true state of our union? Though this may sound harsh, I’ll speak the truth here. We are a country going bankrupt to fund a bloated, distant, and often corrupt federal government led by venal politicians more concerned with paying off their campaign cronies and consolidating their own power than in preserving the constitutional republic that so many have fought and died for (including our brave men and women in uniform who were barely mentioned last night).
We are a country with an economy being stifled under the weight of a bankrupt and voracious federal machine demanding more taxes and burdensome regulations. Job creators are the ones stuck with the bill when Obama calls for “new revenue.” Their businesses bear the brunt of the nearly 87 million paperwork hours imposed by federal regulations in 2012 – annually costing them $1.75 trillion. And I haven’t even mentioned Obamacare yet, which looms like the dark cloud it is over our private sector. Is it any wonder why our economy is stagnant or why job growth is so anemic? President Obama’s “solution” to these problems is to make the federal government more intrusive, bankrupt, and controlling.
If we continue down the path Barack Obama has us on, the long-term forecast of the state of our union is not a pretty picture. Yet he merrily rolls along it, deceiving too many Americans into thinking that these are intelligent, economic, and ethical proposals.
Our President wasn’t candid with Americans about our forecast, but, interestingly, in a Q&A session last week, Paul Krugman, one of President Obama’s economic cheerleaders at the New York Times, was remarkably candid about where we’re headed.
When asked about our federal debt, he admitted that “eventually we do have a problem” especially because “the population is getting older” and “health care costs are rising.” So, what does he see as the solution to pay for all this? He admits that your taxes will rise. And worse:
“Surely in the end it will require some middle class taxes as well. We won’t be able to pay for the kind of government the society will want without some increase in taxes, not a huge one, but some increase in taxes on the middle class, maybe a value added tax. And we’re also going to have to make decisions about health care – not pay for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits. So, the snarky version I use, which I shouldn’t even say because it gets me in trouble, is death panels and sales taxes is how we do this.” (But wait, I thought there’d be no such thing as “death panels,” liberal liars?)
Mr. Krugman tried to portray this brave new world in the gentlest possible light, but it’s going to take quite a lot of “sales taxes” to meet the payments on the ever-increasing multi-trillion dollar debt we’re burying our kids and grandkids under. And with health care costs rising under Obamacare, obviously a lot of care will be rationed and even flat out denied by panels of faceless bureaucrats making life and death decisions for you and your loved ones. This is the long-term forecast for the state of America under Obama’s failed policies: middle class taxes and death panels.
Does that sound good to you? It doesn’t to me. So, we better get motivated to do something about it. We’d better get out of our post-election funk and wake up to the radicals’ reality being created as America gets “fundamentally transformed.”
Here’s the good news: President Obama is in many ways a lame duck president. None of his ridiculous ideas will come to pass via the legislative process. Of course, he may try to force them down America’s throat by imposing them through other means. But they can be undone if the right people are in position to undo them. He is very bold right now – some would say cocky – because of his November win, but there is another election around the corner, and we can check his boldness at the ballot box by electing constitutional conservatives. We must continue to affirm the fact that growing our bankrupt federal government is NOT the solution. Most of what the federal government does could be handled better on the individual, local, and state levels.
Our country didn’t weather a Revolution, two World Wars, a Civil War, a Great Depression, and countless other political and economic storms, just to be sunk by the dangerous policies of this current administration. We’re stronger than this. As President Reagan said, “I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing.”
So, do something. 2014 is just around the corner. Get motivated! Get organized. America, don’t retreat. In the words of yet another White House program, “Let’s move.”
I read an eerie piece the other day on American Gulag entitled The Time for Taking a Stand is Coming and I wrote a piece entitled AMERICA’S FUTURE… WHERE DO WE GO NOW… HOW TO WIN THE BATTLE… AND WHAT WE ARE FIGHTING. The thought that the time for taking a stand is coming is the wrong perspective. The time to start taking that stand is now. The average American is peace loving and easy going and the average conservative/Republican is not naturally confrontational or trained to resort to the Alinsky type methods, outlined in Rules for Radicals that the left lives by and uses to win. But we have allowed the Progressive left to steal our country, alter the meaning and intentions of our Constitution, as well as our beliefs and traditions and most recently to steal the 2012 Election because we believe in playing by the rules and allow ourselves to be teetering off the edge before we really take a stand. The rest of the world is laughing at us or crying for us because they know our fall affects them. But the average person in Canada, Europe and down under, and probably most of the rest of the world, is shaking their heads at our complacent attitude as we are being lead like sheep to the slaughter… or is that ‘sheeple’ as Russia's news paper Pravda (Previously the Official Press of the USSR) dubbed us after Obama’s first election? “The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker”, they wrote in 2009.
It is becoming so evident that the election fraud perpetrated by the left, Team Obama, may have been enough to steal the election and that is just not acceptable. We send people like former President Jimmy Carter and many others to monitor elections all over the world. We made the Iraqis dip their fingers in ink to spot people from voting multiple times, yet we have allowed Eric Holder and Team Obama to fight voter ID Laws all over the United States.
This plan below might not have been exactly what our Founding Fathers envisioned for the provision of the Electoral College, sending an election to the House to be settled if needed. Or perhaps it is exactly what they envisioned… a loophole if we were smart enough to figure it out and stand up if we needed it?!? And the time to stand up is now. If election 2012 was stolen due to voter fraud, which seems more and more evident, there should be a new one or it should go to the House to be settled.
I have been sent several interesting articles and pieces of information lately including: The Marxist Plan to Bankrupt the United States: Is History Repeating Itself? and SOROS REMAKES AMERICA INTO NARCO NATION. The Plans and the people involved in what is going on behind the scenes in American politics are much bigger than Barack Obama and the Election of 2012, but winning that election at any cost was a lynch pin for them! But stealing an election is not winning and allowing it to stand is not what our Founding Fathers would have envisioned.
The fact is that the media manipulation of the facts and coverage of both candidates as well as events like Benghazigate and the jobless numbers was extensive and far-reaching in our dumbed down culture and voter fraud in 2012 was massive, rampant and intentional. So thinking we can fix things in 4 more years could very well be a pipe dream. It is time for Americans to stand up and use the methods of the left to fight back… Alinsky style creativity!
Let us remember that the patriots who fought the British and gave us this one of a kind country and the opportunity to be part of the great American Experiment(Can man rule himself?) did so by not following the rules. The Brits fought in formation, using their rules of war under which they the had the ability, weaponry and experience to beat , us and should have won. We, the colonists, had a rag tag army and far too few resources or men. But we won because we broke the rules and were creative; we fought as a militia, doing what was needed to win from the Boston Tea Party to the small bands of men without uniforms and sometimes evens shoes who hid in and jumped out of trees, because everything was on the line. That is where we are today, but we are not fighting as if everything was on the line. Most Americans are still not even paying attention?!?
How We Can (Still) Stop Obama and Change the Outcome of the Election!!
The vast majority of the public and the press have proclaimed the 2012 Presidential election over and Barack Obama the President-elect. However, as Lee Corso, the college football analyst on ESPN’s Game Day broadcasts is so fond of saying:
“Not so fast my friend!!”
We have only taken the first step in the actual election process constitutionally mandated to select our next President. The two steps that follow, I believe, will determine the future course of this nation and, perhaps, the very survival of the Constitutional principles on which it was founded.
On November 6th,we voted to establish the actual slates of Electors that are to be entrusted with the responsibility of electing
the next President. The next step is for those Electors to gather in the various state capitals on December 17th to cast their ballots. Those ballots are then tallied in the states and forwarded to the President of the Senate and to the National Archivist for confirmation of the final tally by both Houses of the Congress on January 7th.
There are three classes of Electors so charged. Of the total of 538, the breakdown is as follows:
Those designated by popular vote on Democrat slates (332)
Those designated by popular vote on “dedicated” Republican slates (72)
Those designated by popular vote on “unfettered” Republican slates (134)
Each of these Electors assumes a sacred trust to cast his or her ballot only for a candidate constitutionally eligible to actually hold the office of President and Commander in Chief under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.
The key to correcting the current process will be the success of our call to action to the 134 Electors in the third group coming from the 13 states listed below. As of the year 2000, Electors from those states were deemed “unfettered” (meaning that, by law, they are allowed to cast their ballots for whomever they choose.) There is precedent for this in that nine times previously, Electors have cast their ballots independently of the popular vote. Theoretically and practically then, each of these 134 hold the potential to cast their ballots for Mr. Obama and
are therefore entitled to be assured of the constitutional eligibility of his candidacy.
Why is this important? Because through that process, all 134 Republican Electors must be deemed to have “Standing” to demand certifiable evidence of Mr. Obama’s qualifications, as specified under Article 2 of the Constitution, to be deemed a “Natural Born Citizen.“
As we know, Mr. Obama fails to attain to that standard by virtue of his own admission that his birth father was a British Subject.
We the People need now to produce a flood of mail to alert each of these 134 Republican Electors that they have the “Standing” and the responsibility to demand that this question be resolved so that they can make an informed decision before they cast their ballots.
These Electors need to immediately notify their respective Governor and Secretary of State that they require this information prior to December 17th or that they will not be able to properly discharge their Constitutional responsibility.
The following are the “unfettered” states carried by Republican Electors who are not required by law or by pledge to cast ballots for the Republican candidate:
Arizona, North Dakota
Arkansas, South Dakota
Georgia, Tennessee
Indiana, Texas
Kansas, Utah
Louisiana, West Virginia
Missouri
To accomplish this goal of personally notifying all of them, it is suggested that each of us contact the Electors in our home state and at least one other state. The individual Electors’ mail addresses are available through their respective Secretaries of States’ offices.
Once the Electoral College process is impacted by these requirements, it is likely that the courts will be required to hear the full evidence (or, more realistically, the lack thereof) concerning Mr. Obama’s eligibility. The likely outcome of his failing to qualify will throw the election into the House of Representatives, where each state delegation is given one vote.
At the present time, majorities in those delegations are held by Republicans in 32 states and by Democrats in 17 states. Minnesota is a toss-up. Therefore, the likely result of such a vote in the House will be that a Republican will be declared President.
Finally, as a backstop against the possibility that Mr. Obama’s candidacy somehow survives an Electoral College challenge, there are two more critical steps for us to take at this time:
1. Concurrently with our mail campaign to the Electoral College, it is important that we also contact all Republican Representatives and Senators to inform them that we are counting on them to “object” if and/or when the President of the Senate calls for confirmation of an Electoral College “tally” designating Barack Obama as President-elect. If as few as one Representative and one Senator stand to request certification of the candidate’s eligibility, the whole process must stop until a full and final determination is made.
2. Also, the 332 Electors representing the states carried by Democrats need to be put on notice that they will be failing to uphold their Constitutional responsibility if they vote for an ineligible and therefore unqualified candidate. There has already been a case filed in New York State (Strunk) asserting that possibility.
The only way for us not to win this fight is for good people to lose courage. Let’s lock arms, pray, and go to work to revive the Constitutional standards for which so many of our forefathers have fought and died. The wisdom of the founding document that has prospered and strengthened this nation will once again sustain us if we will take action and hold fast to its terms.
God bless America!!
obamaballotchallenge.com ^ is helping to organize a Massive Anti-Obama Rally @ “Obama’s” Inauguration Day!!! Whether it’s massive or not will depend on YOU. Since our officials and parties won’t fight, will YOU? We Have A Dream: 500,000+ Anti-Obama Activists Arrive In Washington D.C. During Obama’s Inauguration Ceremony … If you are unsatisfied with Obama’s reelection win and you further feel that he will ultimately destabilize America completely, then let us join together with bold Anti-Obama signs clearly stating our main grievances concerning unemployment, the economy, Benghazi, foreign policy matters, war status or whatever may perhaps be your main concern(s) on Inauguration Day, January 21, 2013 (Martin Luther King,..
I feel that the Inauguration rally should be our fall back event not our main goal!
My ongoing question is why are we rallying on Inauguration Day, when it is too late? Why are we not demanding that there is a nationwide recount, that the electors for the electoral college in the “unfettered” states go through the process above or hold their votes until after an investigation or indefinitely, forcing a vote for president in the House of Representatives or a whole new election??
How We Can (Still) Stop Obama and Change the Outcome of the Election!!
The vast majority of the public and the press have proclaimed the 2012 Presidential election over and Barack Obama the President-elect. However, as Lee Corso, the college football analyst on ESPN’s Game Day broadcasts is so fond of saying:
“Not so fast my friend!!”
We have only taken the first step in the actual election process constitutionally mandated to select our next President. The two steps that follow, I believe, will determine the future course of this nation and, perhaps, the very survival of the Constitutional principles on which it was founded.
On November 6th, we voted to establish the actual slates of Electors that are to be entrusted with the responsibility of electing
the next President. The next step is for those Electors to gather in the various state capitals on December 17th to cast their ballots. Those ballots are then tallied in the states and forwarded to the President of the Senate and to the National Archivist for confirmation of the final tally by both Houses of the Congress on January 7th.
There are three classes of Electors so charged. Of the total of 538, the breakdown is as follows:
Those designated by popular vote on Democrat slates (332)
Those designated by popular vote on “dedicated” Republican slates (72)
Those designated by popular vote on “unfettered” Republican slates (134)
Each of these Electors assumes a sacred trust to cast his or her ballot only for a candidate constitutionally eligible to actually hold the office of President and Commander in Chief under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.
The key to correcting the current process will be the success of our call to action to the 134 Electors in the third group coming from the 13 states listed below. As of the year 2000, Electors from those states were deemed “unfettered” (meaning that, by law, they are allowed to cast their ballots for whomever they choose.) There is precedent for this in that nine times previously, Electors have cast their ballots independently of the popular vote. Theoretically and practically then, each of these 134 hold the potential to cast their ballots for Mr. Obama and
are therefore entitled to be assured of the constitutional eligibility of his candidacy.
Why is this important? Because through that process, all 134 Republican Electors must be deemed to have “Standing” to demand certifiable evidence of Mr. Obama’s qualifications, as specified under Article 2 of the Constitution, to be deemed a “Natural Born Citizen.“
As we know, Mr. Obama fails to attain to that standard by virtue of his own admission that his birth father was a British Subject.
We the People need now to produce a flood of mail to alert each of these 134 Republican Electors that they have the “Standing” and the responsibility to demand that this question be resolved so that they can make an informed decision before they cast their ballots.
These Electors need to immediately notify their respective Governor and Secretary of State that they require this information prior to December 17th or that they will not be able to properly discharge their Constitutional responsibility.
The following are the “unfettered” states carried by Republican Electors who are not required by law or by pledge to cast ballots for the Republican candidate:
Arizona, North Dakota
Arkansas, South Dakota
Georgia, Tennessee
Indiana, Texas
Kansas, Utah
Louisiana, West Virginia
Missouri
To accomplish this goal of personally notifying all of them, it is suggested that each of us contact the Electors in our home state and at least one other state. The individual Electors’ mail addresses are available through their respective Secretaries of States’ offices.
Once the Electoral College process is impacted by these requirements, it is likely that the courts will be required to hear the full evidence (or, more realistically, the lack thereof) concerning Mr. Obama’s eligibility. The likely outcome of his failing to qualify will throw the election into the House of Representatives, where each state delegation is given one vote.
At the present time, majorities in those delegations are held by Republicans in 32 states and by Democrats in 17 states. Minnesota is a toss-up. Therefore, the likely result of such a vote in the House will be that a Republican will be declared President.
Finally, as a backstop against the possibility that Mr. Obama’s candidacy somehow survives an Electoral College challenge, there are two more critical steps for us to take at this time:
1. Concurrently with our mail campaign to the Electoral College, it is important that we also contact all Republican Representatives and Senators to inform them that we are counting on them to “object” if and/or when the President of the Senate calls for confirmation of an Electoral College “tally” designating Barack Obama as President-elect. If as few as one Representative and one Senator stand to request certification of the candidate’s eligibility, the whole process must stop until a full and final determination is made.
2. Also, the 332 Electors representing the states carried by Democrats need to be put on notice that they will be failing to uphold their Constitutional responsibility if they vote for an ineligible and therefore unqualified candidate. There has already been a case filed in New York State (Strunk) asserting that possibility.
The only way for us not to win this fight is for good people to lose courage. Let’s lock arms, pray, and go to work to revive the Constitutional standards for which so many of our forefathers have fought and died. The wisdom of the founding document that has prospered and strengthened this nation will once again sustain us if we will take action and hold fast to its terms.
God bless America!!
obamaballotchallenge.com ^: a Massive Anti-Obama Rally @ “Obama’s” Inauguration Day!!! is being floated. Whether it’s massive or not will depend on YOU. Since our officials and parties won’t fight, will YOU? We Have A Dream: 500,000+ Anti-Obama Activists Arrive In Washington D.C. During Obama’s Inauguration Ceremony … If you are unsatisfied with Obama’s reelection win and you further feel that he will ultimately destabilize America completely, then let us join together with bold Anti-Obama signs clearly stating our main grievances concerning unemployment, the economy, Benghazi, foreign policy matters, war status or whatever may perhaps be your main concern(s) on Inauguration Day, January 21, 2013 (Martin Luther King,..
I feel that the Inauguration rally should be our fall back event not our main goal!
For my question is why are we rallying on Inauguration Day, when it is too late? Why are we not demanding that there is a nationwide recount, that the electors for the electoral college in the “unfettered” states go through the process above or hold their votes until after an investigation or indefinitely, forcing a vote for president in the House of Representatives or a whole new election??
