Rebranding Hillary

By Marion Algier – Ask Marion

The remaking of Hillary Clinton is in full force!

[…] Hillaryville should be imploding and even though Hillary does ‘not’ deserve our admiration nor another shot at the Presidency, the left is sure that Hillary Clinton will be the 2016 Democrat Presidential candidate.  Regardless of the truth about Hillary’s disgraceful handling of and decisions during the Benghazi crisis and the entire surrounding operation; her involvement in gun-walking; her questionable involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood… hence her relationship with her senior staffer, Huma Abedin Weiner… yes Mrs. Anthony Weiner; and her role in promoting several major anti-Constitution pro-UN treaties and programs including the UN Small Arms Treaty and the Rights of the Child Treaty which essentially aim to transfer rights and powers of the Constitution, Americans and American parents to the United Nations she is at the top of the Democrat Party’s list of 2016 presidential candidates and the media is and will continue to follow their lead. 

Facts Don’t Lie

Video:  Judge Jeanine Pirro “Fact Blasted” Hillary & the Obama Administration on the Benghazi Attack &

Rand Paul Destroyed Hillary Clinton Over Benghazi-Gate During Capitol Hill Press Conference

Remember those who died in the Benghazi attacks in service of the United States… and all the unanswered questions… It does make a difference!! I bet if it were Chelsea left behind in Benghazi it would make a huge difference to Hillary!!

The left is committed to rebuilding Hillary from a sinner to a saint including a campaign of whitewashing the Clinton past (both Bill and Hillary’s) and the mainstream media the left controls will be airing cherry picked specials on both the Clintons beginning with an upcoming NBC miniseries where Hillary will be played by Diane Lane, the daughter-in-law of uber-liberal Barbra Streisand and wife of Josh Brolin who starred in the less than complementary film W./[Blu-ray] about George W. Bush; what could go wrong? The complicit media will spin the Clinton story to Hillary’s benefit, unlike the way they portrayed the Reagans in the recent Lee Daniels’s movie, The Butler, where ‘Hanoi’ Jane  was purposely cast as First Lady Nancy Reagan and unlike the jour’no’lists who purposely colluded  as part of a mission to destroy Sarah Palin with lies and fabrications.

Video: Hillary Clinton Goes Hollywood - NBC, CNN To Produce Clinton Projects - Bias Alert?

Video: David Webb VS Leslie Marshall talk Hillary Mini Series & Anthony Weiner on Fox News

Charles Krauthammer recently appeared on The Factor predicting that a 2016 Hillary Presidential bid will not be easy and that she is not a shoe in. The “only memorable thing about Clinton as Secretary of State was her 'what difference does it make' catastrophe” when she testified before Congress on Benghazi, said Krauthammer.

Is Hillary Clinton already campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination? Charles Krauthammer doesn’t think she’s a shoe-in candidate. He told Bill O’Reilly on The Factor, “First of all, let’s remember she’s not exactly invincible. She was the anointed one before Barack Obama came along.”

He said the Republican Party has a stronger argument because the country hasn’t done well under President Obama. Krauthammer cited Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush as some of the possible opponents to take on Clinton.

O’Reilly wasn’t as convinced, saying that Clinton is almost like an incumbent. But Krauthammer said that doesn’t mean a Republican candidate won’t win in the end. He said part of the GOP’s job will be de-mythologizing Clinton.

Krauthammer also took issue with Clinton’s record as Secretary of State. “Name me one thing she accomplished in the four years. […] The only thing that came out of her Secretary of State period was a memorable line, ‘what difference does it make,’ about the Benghazi catastrophe – the first slaying of an American ambassador in three decades.”

Moreover, “people get tired of a party in power,” Krauthammer said. “Obama’s going to have an unsuccessful second term. The economy’s going to be anemic. It’s not going to be that easy for a Democrat to say eight more years.”

Barack and Hillary in 2008 during the primaries… as they slipped away to a clandestine meeting  of the power elite where many feel the decision was made to run Obama instead of Hillary

Hillary and Barack now (2012 – 2013)… a MUCH worn Hillary

“The left progressive Democrat party is already hot and heavy into trying to rehab the old sow’s ear Hillary, even with all the scandals, into a silk purse they can (and will if America doesn’t wake up) sell to Americans and far too many women who have long been sold a bag of tainted goods about Hillary Clinton and feminism in general.”  —Reformed Woman

And Mark Levin noted: Hillary Clinton Is Barack Obama In A Dress (see video).  She is just smarter… which will make her more dangerous.  Let us remember that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have the same mentor.

Obama in a Dress….

Even the NY Times Took a Hard Look at the Clinton Foundation in a recent piece. And many are questioning the early unofficial start of the Clinton campaign.  It leaves a lot of time for people to dig out the dirt, and there is plenty on the Clintons; plus there is the burnout factor.  Beginning her campaign this early may leave many looking for someone new, even if the truth doesn’t turn them away, by 2016.

You might want to read Books: The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party (Kindle) and Hillary Clinton Nude: Naked Ambition, Hillary Clinton And America's Demise (Kindle) as a balance to the MSM news, miniseries and Clinton specials that will be thrown your way between now and 2014 and intensified after that. The left is sure America will buy whatever they sell, from harmful drugs, to GMO foods, to cover-ups on an ever-growing list of scandals, to lies about and purposeful negative intervention of anyone who stands up to them… and of course to another 8-years of the Clintons. (Propaganda/Kindle by Edward Bernays is a must read for everyone). […]  The Progressive Democrat Party leadership, actually the  power elite (on both sides), think average Americans are stupid or at least uninformed and disinterested enough for them to steer us in any direction they see fit. 

2016 just could turn out to be the year of The Election of the First Female President of the United States and Hillary Clinton will do anything to make sure it is her.  So now is the time for people with options and solutions to step up and for the rest of us to educate ourselves!

Related:

Huma Abedin Weiner…

Bill, Ted, Antonio, Joe, Debbie and Friends Take Us All to an Alternative Universe….

Books

The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party (Kindle)

Hillary Clinton Nude: Naked Ambition, Hillary Clinton And America's Demise (Kindle)

The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration  (Kindle)

From Shadow Party to Shadow Government: George Soros and the Effort to Radically Change America (Kindle)

Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election—and How to Stop Them from Doing It in 2016 (Kindle)

DVD: Primary Colors (VHS)

Technorati Tags: rebranding,remaking,rebuilding,repackaging,Hillary,Hillayville,Hillary Clinton,Palin,Options,politics,watch the other hand,smoke and mirrors,Progressivism,Levin,Mark Levin,remaking Hillary,rebranding Hillary,lies,Election 2016,2016 Election,low-informed voters,the Clintons,ethics,UN Small Arms Treaty,Rights of the Child Treaty,disarming America,Krauthammer,Clinton Foundation,Edward Bernays

Mark Levin talks about his new book with an expert panel on Hannity – The Liberty Amendments

Mark Levin appeared on Hannity (on 08.16.13) along with a great expert conservative panel for a full hour special to discuss his new bestseller, The Liberty Amendments (Kindle), and the solutions for America covered therein.  For anyone who is not familiar with Mark Levin, he is an attorney, radio talk show host, Constitutional expert and served as part of Ronald Reagan’s team.  Great questions from the panel and a great discussion with Levin.

Levin said, “We are living in a ‘Post Constitutional World’”, but reminded us that the Founders of our country and writers of the Constitution gave us article 5… for just such a time.  Many conservatives have been afraid to go move forward with a Constitutional Convention to reclaim the Republic, but as Levin pointed out… what is there to be afraid of?  The other side already has and does what they want.  He said there are, of course no guarantees of the outcome, but he said he does know what the outcome will be if we continue going down the road we are now on.  Mark offers what he call the Liberty Amendments and a pathway for Americans to take to save the Republic.

Only 20% of America consider themselves to be liberals or Progressives.  40% consider themselves to be Conservatives.  And the other 40% are pretty much disengaged.  Yet the 20% are wagging the dog…

Watch highlights below:

Mark Levin–Hannity Special on the Liberty Amendments 1

Video:  Mark Levin On Sean Hannity - The Liberty Amendments Part 1

Mark Levin–Hannity Special on the Liberty Amendments 2

Video: Mark Levin On Sean Hannity - The Liberty Amendments Part 2

Video: Mark Levin On Neil Cavuto - Fox News - The Liberty Amendments

Human Events: Radio host Mark Levin’s new book, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic, is one of the most focused, accessible, and aggressive political books you’ll ever find. Levin’s thesis is that the balance of power between the three branches of the federal government, the states, and the American people has been distorted beyond the ability of conventional politics to repair. After all, if the power of the legislature has been diminished relative to the executive, the executive has dispersed its disproportionate power into unelected bureaucracies, and the states are increasingly powerless vassals of Washington, then there is no way for the peoples’ representatives in Congress or state houses to draft laws that would correct the situation. The entire point of this century-long quest to centralize power was to remove it from the clumsy hands of foolish American citizens. We are spectators to a game show in Washington. We might be able to vote a few of the contestants off the show, but we have no control over the rules of the game.

Levin aims to change the rules of the game… or, more properly, reset them, to restore the brilliant system put in place by America’s Founders. With the situation explained and his goals set forth in a few introductory pages, he executes the rest of his book with the planning and precision of a SEAL team taking an objective. Each of his proposed “Liberty Amendments” is laid out in a brief chapter that explains its importance, sources it to the writings of the Founding Fathers, and anticipates the more reasonable objections that would likely be raised. Little time is wasted on the unreasonable objections, for Levin does not intend to address an audience of the stupid, greedy, or hysterical. He also knows his statist adversaries are not interested in rationally discussing the death of the Leviathan they nourished for generations.

A Constitutional reset is necessary because the progressive project is a cascade of lost freedoms, designed so that each step is irreversible, and every inch of ground taken by the State is claimed forever. The distribution of power to unelected bureaucrats is a key element of this process. One of the Liberty Amendments “sunsets” all federal departments and agencies, unless Congress reauthorizes them every three years by majority vote. Every big-ticket Executive Branch regulation would be subjected to review by a joint congressional committee. This amendment would pull the plug on the unstoppable federal bureaucracy, forcing every department to perpetually justify its existence, and terminating President Obama’s beloved practice of circumventing Congress to legislate by decree.

Another Liberty Amendment likewise reins in the judicial branch, setting term limits for Supreme Court justices, and giving Congress the power to override Supreme Court opinions with a three-fifths vote, without risk of presidential veto. Three-fifths of the state legislatures can also join forces to knock down a Court decision. That’s a recurring theme of the Liberty Amendments: the restoration of both congressional and state power. As Levin repeatedly reminds us, nothing worried the Founders more than the rise of a despotic national executive, such as the one we have now. The original states never would have signed on to a federal government that turned them into puppets. There were strong logical arguments against these outcomes, which power-hungry progressives understood quite well, back when they first set about overturning the Constitutional order. Modern progressives don’t think they need to understand those arguments any more, because the foundation of the total State has been laid, and the clock can never be “turned back,” as one of their favorite slogans has it. This should leave them at a severe intellectual disadvantage, if the Liberty Amendments become a topic of national debate.

Some of Levin’s proposed amendments are intended to clarify language that already exists in the Constitution, such as the much-abused Commerce Clause – lately interpreted as a warrant for unlimited federal control of all human activity, although the Founders most certainly did not intend it to be taken that way. Our language has changed over the centuries, always in a way that expands the Left’s desire for centralized control. The authors of the Constitution would find our current understanding of the word “commerce” to be utterly deranged – indeed, they might even ask what the point of their Revolution was, if “interstate commerce” was to become a writ for powers beyond the wildest dreams of daft old King George.

Two of the proposed Liberty Amendments are devastating blows against imperial federal power, making it easier for states to amend the Constitution, and giving them a brief window of opportunity to strike down both congressional legislation and Executive Branch legislation. Levin also makes a compelling argument against the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for the direct election of United States senators. Senators were supposed to be instruments of the state legislatures, while the House of Representatives would be filled by popular vote. I have never read a better explanation for why this was important, and how it gave state governments a vitally needed hand in the crafting of federal legislation.

I’ve also seen no better case made for term limits on Congress, as Levin astutely points out that not only do Jurassic representatives-for-life distort the distribution of power in Congress, but they invest a great deal of our national energy (and funding!) in maintaining their 85-percent-plus re-election rate. Surely some of those “safe” districts would merely replace Retiring Party Drone A with New Party Drone B, but as it stands, far too many representatives discover they can most easily secure lifetime tenure by representing the Leviathan State instead of their constituents, tapping the federal treasury to purchase reliable voters.

The reason all of these goals must be accomplished through Constitutional amendment is that any other instrument of legislation or representation can be twisted to the purposes of the central State. Levin makes an irrefutable case that we long ago passed the point of no return for reforming our bloated, degenerate, dying federal government by winning a few elections. The people who rigged this system made certain to armor it against future dissent from unhappy voters – one man, one vote, one time, every step of the way, with each new progressive “achievement” promptly declared more immutable than the tattered old scrap of parchment kept under glass at the National Archives. Having studied the provisions for a Constitutional convention, Levin is convinced that the high bar for state ratification of any proposed amendments will keep it from becoming a carnival of kooks. The kooks are winning anyway. What could they get by amending the Constitution that our eternal bureaucracy and despotic executive branch aren’t giving them, one lost liberty at a time?

If you want to bring the ship of state into drydock, instead of slightly adjusting its course, The Liberty Amendments provides an excellent set of schematics. Levin’s strategy is the only way for the American people to have a say on all the things we’ve been told we don’t get to vote on any more. Reading this book will help you appreciate the terrible magnitude of what we have lost, and the intractable nature of an arrogant system that dictates to us instead of representing us, appropriating the language of “democracy” to dignify what really amounts to quelling dissent against whatever the ruling class wants to do next. And if you’re not already a Constitutional scholar of Mark Levin’s caliber, you might be surprised to learn just how accurately the supposedly out-of-touch and obsolete Founders predicted everything happening today. Why, reading Chapter Eight of The Liberty Amendments, you’d think John Adams was taking daily delivery of the New York Times through a time warp. I suspect he and his peers would have little argument with Levin’s recommendations.

Rush: Levin's book can help save the country

Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin eyed as 2016 GOP debate moderators

Levin, The Liberty Amendments, Book Signings

• Saturday, August 17, 12pm - Book Revue - Huntington, NY
• Sunday, August 18, 11am - Bookends - Ridgewood, NJ
• Saturday, August 24, 10am - Barnes & Noble - Tysons Corner, VA
• Saturday, September 7, 1:30pm - Reagan Library - Simi Valley, CA -  Mark Levin to give a lecture and book signing at the Reagan Library on September 7th.

Mark Levin’s Books

The Liberty Amendments (Kindle)

Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America (Kindle)

Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto (Kindle)

Technorati Tags: Books,Founding Fathers,Ronald Reagan,Constitution,education,Sean Hannity,Fox News,Mark Levin,Saving America,freedom,liberty,educate yourself,Liberty Amendments,Levin,new book,Fox,presidential libraries,Rush,Hannity,Constitutionalist,patriotism,standing up,Reagan

Freedom Party or GOP Overhaul… You Be the Judge

Marion Algier – AskMarion

Sarah Palin is definitely back full force and has opened the conversation as to whether the path forward for conservatives, concerned patriots and Reagan Democrats who feel they are not being represented by the GOP, either party, should be looking toward a new party or if there should be a GOP overhaul.  The former governor of Alaska floated the idea of bolting from the Republican Party if it continues to, as she sees it, to back away from the principals of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan.  The Whig party was replaced by the Republican Party, with Abraham Lincoln as it’s first president and Ronald Reagan its modern standard bearer by which all others are measured.  Sarah Palin said she was open to creating new 'Freedom Party' if GOP continues to 'neglect conservatives'… common sense patriots of all stripes.  Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin entertained building a "Freedom Party" while answering Twitter questions on Fox News Saturday.

In response to one Twitter user who asked, “Would you & Mark Levin be willing to build a 'Freedom Party' if GOP continues to ignore conservatives?”  Sarah said:

"I love the name of that party — the 'Freedom Party,'" Palin replied. "And if the GOP continues to back away from the planks in our platform, from the principles that built this party of Lincoln and Reagan, then yeah."

Whenever the idea of forming a third party is mentioned a huge debate ensues, as it should, but too often just the negative arguments surface.  In August 2012, the Examiner ran an article on how to counter the negative arguments.  The biggest argument is always: “Voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote… They can’t win!

“Voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote because the candidate cannot/will not win.”

Here are two distinct arguments for the Examiner, as the case for a third party candidate being unable to win is much different than a prediction that said candidate will not win. Let us examine both cases:

RINOs and DINOs

1. Voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote because the candidate cannot win.

Anyone who claims this is claiming that the election process in America is rigged. Let us set aside the matter of whether this is actually the case and focus narrowly on the claim being made. A person who believes this should be trying to convince people not to vote at all in protest of a corrupt system, not trying to convince people to vote for Republicans or Democrats.

2. Voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote because the candidate will not win.

Anyone who claims this is claiming to be able to predict the future. We know that all psychics are charlatans and frauds, so such a claim destroys the credibility of the arguer. This argument is also an example of a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning. Don't vote third party because they won't win? How are they supposed to win if no one votes for them? Furthermore, this argument assumes that winning is everything, which is false. Third parties have to contend with obstructionist ballot access laws passed by Republicans and Democrats, which typically require a national-level or state-level candidate of a third party to win a certain percentage (usually 5%) of the vote in order to keep the third party on the ballot. Failing that, the third party must make a petition drive to collect signatures, typically numbering in the tens of thousands, and then (in many cases) fight off a challenge by lawyers and operatives of the two major parties.

N.B.: It is helpful to apply the arguer's logic to major-party candidates. For example, consider the U.S. presidential election of 2008. Statistical analysis shows that Republican nominee John McCain had no chance of defeating Democratic nominee Barack Obama. Therefore, by establishment logic, a vote for John McCain was a wasted vote. This logic can also be extended to the presidential elections in each state. Without loss of generality, a vote for a Republican candidate in a state that is safe Democrat is a wasted vote. After this counterargument, the arguer must either admit that using ability to win as a gauge of whether a vote is wasted is illogical, or accept that votes for anyone except the winner of an election are wasted, a premise which leads to a one-party dictatorship in which voting is meaningless.

You have to choose the lesser of two evils. A vote for (insert third party candidate's name here) is a vote for (insert name of major party candidate the arguer dislikes here).

This is clearly false, because if it were true, no other options would be on the ballot. Typically implicit in this argument is a logical fallacy known as appeal to fear. The arguer usually attempts to persuade voters to vote for their major party candidate by saying that a third party vote is a vote for the opposition candidate, who would be the worst possible choice. But this argument assumes that one would consider voting for a major party candidate if one's third party candidate were not in the election. If this is not the case, then the argument is invalid. In fact, the argument is always invalid because votes do not “belong” to Republicans, Democrats, or anyone else other than the voters who cast them.

Because of Duverger's Law and the nature of the American system, there will be a two-party system.

If this were true, we would expect to see a two-party system arise between Democrats and Greens in a place like Massachusetts, or between Republicans and Libertarians in a place like Utah, places where one of the two major parties has essentially vanquished the other. The absence of such a development seems to suggest that Duverger's Law is not ironclad.

Historically, third parties have not won the Presidency.

This is a statement of fact, unless we consider Abraham Lincoln's victory in 1860 to be the election of a third party candidate. But this is simply a statement of fact, not a proper logical argument. There is however, an implied argument that the past predicts the future. Such a prediction only holds weight if we allow it to. As the saying goes, if you keep on doing what you have always done, you will keep on getting what you have always gotten. To say that the past failure of third parties to win the Presidency creates an unalterable future in which no third party candidate can win the Presidency is to claim that the people have no real choice under the current system. If this is so, then it would make little sense to vote at all, since the established duopoly cannot be removed by democratic means.

Your third party vote will accomplish nothing.

False. See the above argument about ballot access laws. Also consider the historical impact of third parties. While the Prohibition Party and the Socialist Party of America never won any presidential elections, both succeeded in getting their platforms adopted by the major parties after spoiling enough elections and gaining a large enough portion of the popular vote. There is no reason why this could not happen again, and one possible way for a third party candidate to eventually win is to have ideas that are popular for an extended period of time that the two major parties simply refuse to implement.

If your third party candidate was any good, he/she would have won the primary of one of the two major parties.

Perhaps there was a time when this was true, but it is certainly not true today. The increased statism and polarization of the two major parties have made it difficult, if not impossible, for a libertarian-leaning candidate to win the nomination of a major party. Centrist candidates also face problems when it comes to invigorating the more extreme bases of their parties. It is worth considering that moneyed interests, especially since the Citizens United v. FEC case, may be manipulating the nominating processes of the two major parties to nominate certain types of candidates while keeping certain other types of candidates from winning. Such a scenario leaves only the independent and third party routes for a true grassroots candidate.

There is not enough time for a third party to achieve sufficient power to influence events.

If this is true, then it makes little sense to vote at all. The duopoly has set us on the course that the arguer claims will lead to destruction, and we cannot solve our problems by using the same thinking we used when we created them. If this is false, then as time is indeed a precious resource, we should not squander it by supporting establishment candidates and thereby wasting an opportunity for change.

As you can see, the “wasted vote” theory has no logical leg upon which to stand. So whenever you hear someone use this argument, send them to this article for a proper refutation.

The comments I have read online… Twitter, facebook and comments on related articles have been very positive toward forming a 3rd party, replacing the deaf GOP  and for Sarah Palin, Mark Levin, Jim DeMint and other fiscal conservatives and constitutionalists to form the Freedom Party if there isn’t immediate change in Washington.

But Oldironsides, Nelson Abdullah, of Conscience of a Conservative, whose work I generally like, had a pretty negatative outlook:

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has been my hero since the day she was chosen to run for Vice-President on the Republican Party ticket in 2008 (after her electrifying convention speech at the Xcel Energy Center). Sarah Palin has always epitomized the strong, patriotic female conservative with her Mama Grizzly and Lipstick on a Pit Bull attitude. Now I suspect she is about to consider the biggest mistake of her life and I am afraid a great number of her loyal fans will follow her. Jeff Poor wrote yesterday on The Daily Caller, “Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president responded to a Fox News Channel viewer’s Twitter question Saturday about the possibility of her and conservative talker Mark Levin abandoning the Republican Party and creating something called the “Freedom Party.”

When true Republicans stand fast on the traditional principles of their party they win elections. Unfortunately, there are too many Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) who have managed to destroy the image we represent. It was no coincidence that Sarah Palin was chosen to run along side one of the party’s biggest RINOs, Arizona Senator John McCain. Without Sarah Palin on the ticket, I and a whole lot of other conservative Republicans would have probably stayed home on election day in 2008. This is not the first time that a strong liberal influence has taken hold of the Republican Party. I was there in New York when the state Republican Party was dominated by ultra liberals Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits. In fact, what the conservative Republicans did then in the early 1960s is just what Sarah Palin is thinking of doing now. Abandoning the Republican Party and creating a new political party. Sarah Palin is calling her party The Freedom Party, the disenfranchised Republicans in New York called their new party The Conservative Party.

If history has a way of repeating itself, Sarah Palin’s Freedom Party will become relegated to a distant 3rd or 4th place in the national political power base. The New York State Conservative Party was only successful in electing one candidate to a national office in the last 50 years and that was James Buckley who became a one term U.S. Senator. James Buckley was the brother of noted columnist William F. Buckley and shared his notoriety. From the inception of the Conservative Party their greatest influence was in cross-endorsing a handful of conservative Republicans in local elections.

Wikipedia has a rather complete story about the history of the New York State Conservative Party.

The Conservative Party of New York State is a political party in the United States active in the state of New York, holding “Line C” on ballots directly below the Democratic and Republican parties. It only operates in New York State, and is not part of any larger party.

In New York State’s elections, the Conservative Party is ranked fourth place in terms of membership, behind only the Democrats, Republicans, and the Independence Party, but ahead of the Greens and Constitution Parties.[1] As of November 1, 2011, a total of 147,993 voters, or 1.3% of New York State’s total enrollment, are registered with the party.[2]

History
Electoral History of the Conservative Party of New York State
The Conservative Party of New York State was founded in 1962 by a group including J. Daniel Mahoney, Kieran O’Doherty, Charles E. Rice, and Charles Edison, out of frustration with the perceived liberalism of the state’s Republican Party. A key consideration was New York’s fusion voting, unusual among US states, which allows individual candidates to receive votes from more than one party. The Liberal Party of New York, founded in 1944, had earlier benefited from this system.

The Conservative Party founders wanted to balance the Liberal Party’s influence. One early supporter was National Review founder William F. Buckley, who was the party’s candidate for mayor of New York City in 1965. In 1970, his brother James Buckley was elected to the U.S. Senate as a Conservative Party candidate; in 1976, he ran for reelection as a candidate of the Republican and Conservative Parties, losing to Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In the 2004 U.S. Senate election, the Conservative Party endorsed Marilyn O’Grady to oppose Republican candidate Howard Mills and incumbent Democratic Senator Charles Schumer.

My strongest advice to Sarah Palin is in the words of someone she may admire: “You don’t change horses in the middle of the stream.” And it comes from the mouth of the most famous Republican of all, Abraham Lincoln. From an 1864 speech by Abraham Lincoln, in reply to Delegation from the National Union League who were urging him to be their presidential candidate. ‘An old Dutch farmer, who remarked to a companion once that it was not best to swap horses when crossing streams.”

As far as national politics goes, third party movements only manage to split the conservative vote. Put a Democrat on the ballot against a Republican and a Third Party candidate and if the third party candidate is a conservative, the Democrat usually wins. The only recognizable third party we have today is the Libertarian Party but in spite of their conservative leanings, they seem to have been created for the sole purpose of legalizing marijuana. The Libertarian Party has virtually no international platform and wants a whole slew of state and federal laws repealed to prohibit one activity or another. In several noted examples, when a Libertarian Party candidate ran in a local election the Democrat always won and usually the votes gathered between the Republican and the Libertarian was greater than what the Democrat had received. A few noteworthy Libertarians such as U.S. Senator Rand Paul and Congressman Thomas Massie won their elections in Kentucky by running on the Republican Party ticket. And that is the only way to win.

No matter which way Palin and her potential co-founders of the proposed Freedom Party go… new party or the re-vamp of the GOP, it will be interesting!!  As the CPAC Star said in her March Speech, “We are not here to rebrand a party… We are here to rebuild a country!”

You be the judge…

Related:

Rush Limbaugh: GOP 'Authoring Its Demise' With Immigration Reform Bill

Technorati Tags: Freedom Party,3rd Party,Third Party,Palin,Sarah Palin,Leadership,Mark Levin,you be the judge,GOP Establishment,Amnesty Bill,RINO,RINOs,DINOs,GOP Overhaul,Whigs,history,Conservatives,saving America,SarahPac,Lincoln,Reaganesque,Reagan,Limbaugh,Republicans,immigration

Mark Levin: Our Society is being “Driven into Decline by the Statists who are Devouring our Society” – Audio 3/22/13

Video: Mark Levin: Our Society is being "Driven into Decline by the Statists who are Devouring…

Technorati Tags: Mark Levin,you be the judge,society,decline

Mark Levin: Time To Politically Sabotage Obama Administration

Video: Mark Levin: Time To Politically Sabotage Obama Administration

Technorati Tags: Mark levin,fighting back,politics,Obamaland,stand-up America

It’s Night Time in America

Video: It’s Night Time in America

Technorati Tags: It's Morning in America,It's Night Time America,Ronald Reagan,Obamaland,time for change,Election 2012,2012 Election,Mitt Romney 2012,wake-up America,economic crisis,FORWARD

Fluke Spin…

As usual, we have been set up!  Team Obama found abortion activist Sandra Fluke and used her and the left-leaning (MSM) media to spin the latest attack on the Freedom of Religion and the Constitution out of the news and into a women’s rights and and contraception issue.  Add the fact that Rush Limbaugh stepped into it and which they blew out of proportion… so now that is all we are talking about.  That’s right we allowed the left to spin this into the wrong issue… again.

Now the left is demanding that Limbaugh be taken off the air… so typical, but what about all their name calling (Schultz, Maher, Sharpton… or how about his scum bucket who attacks Palin’s special needs child?), a typical tool of the left? And several sponsors dropped the show… seems now they are ‘practically begging to come back’ says Rush.

Yesterday, The Blaze and others featured a story from Daily Beast writer Kirsten Powers about the Left’s obvious myopia on misogyny from their own kind. That begs the question: Are they being selective in their calls for a firing? We have the video.

Consider this: The Weekly Standard’s John McCormack wonders if Obama will tell his super PAC to return Bill Maher’s million dollar donation after the HBO host has repeatedly called conservative women by words we cannot print here. However, McCormack‘s point about Maher’s offensive joke at the expense of Rick Santorum’s wife is important and printable:

He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job.

The Weekly Standard writer reports that the White House has not responded to questions about returning Maher’s donation. And yet, the calls for Rush Limbaugh’s head are growing louder.

Despite issuing an apology for calling Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke a “slut,” there is still a concerted effort to silence Limbaugh. Websites calling for his termination are popping up daily. Sponsors and stations that are part of Limbaugh’s empire are under attack.

Some have wondered where is the “equal justice” when it comes to controversial comments made by media personalities. CNN’s “Early Start” featured a rant from Ashleigh Banfield that shows the co-anchor cheering the loss of sponsors from Limbaugh’s program, but makes no mention of the frequent, inappropriate and vulgar characterizations of conservative women by many on the Left: (Full article HERE with video)

‘Fluke’-ing it for Obama  -  Canada Free Press, by Judi McLeod

In the name calling simmering side-war of the raging, Obama-manufactured Contraception Battle dominating the presidential race, Sandra Kay Fluke got away with never being called out for what she really is: a “prop”. Make that a bone fide Obama prop. And that Fluke got through all the hoops without being outed as a prop is proof positive that the Obama regime continues uninterrupted to blissfully write the Big Narrative on life under coming Marxist rule. As sure as another Obama holiday stands in the offing, props are part of this regime’s bag of slick tricks. Read full Original Article

Monday’s Factor Talking Points Memo & Top Story was ‘Is Obama using contraception controversy to win over female voters?’  O’Reilly also discussed this situation guests: Mona Charen & Sally Quinn.  “The Democrats may have bamboozled the GOP -- they were able to turn a religious freedom controversy into a women's health care controversy, potentially courting female voters in the process...” Talking Points Video HERE

Revealed: Abortion Agenda of Campus Group Headed by Sandra Fluke

(The Blaze) Sandra Fluke’s appearances on-camera thus far, as well as Rush Limbaugh’s well publicized reaction to her Congressional testimony, have turned her into a martyr for the Left. But as The Blaze has reported, holes still remain in her story. For instance, Fluke is really 30-years-old (not the 23 that has been reported), and specifically went to Georgetown to fight their contraception policy – far from the innocent, wide-eyed victim she’s tried to portray herself to be.

But perhaps more revealing than what Fluke has publicly said is what she has declined to say. Her testimony before Congress, for instance, included precisely zero references to recreational sex or to abortion. Instead, Fluke would have her audience believe she’s only interested in non-sexual reasons for needing contraceptive pills – such as treating ovarian cancer. According to one study, the number of people to whom this applies is about 14 percent of all contraceptive users.

But is this really all Fluke’s agenda is? Based on the affiliations she herself has cited, that question may be more complicated. Near the beginning of her testimony, Fluke said the following (emphasis added):

My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.

So if Fluke has these sorts of ties to an organization and mentions them by name for the purposes of appreciation, readers will probably assume she supports their agenda.

But what is that agenda? For that matter, how is “reproductive justice” defined? A quick look at the Law Students for Reproductive Justice’s website provides the answer:

Reproductive Justice (PDF)

Perhaps the most relevant pull quote is as follows:

Reproductive Justice (RJ) represents an emerging framework, an analytical tool, a movement building strategy, and a desired outcome. RJ advocates concentrate on the realization of the rights to have a child, to not have a child, and to birth and parent the children with dignity. More specifically, we aim to construct legally tenable, realistically accessible avenues for informed, consensual, unobstructed decision-making about education, sex, contraception, sterilization, abortion, procreation, birthing, and parenting.

There is no mention of treatments for ovarian cancer, or cysts, or any other disorder that would involve contraceptive medicine being used for non-contraceptive purposes. The inclusion of abortion is also a recurring theme. The Blaze uncovered one video (that has now me removed by the powers that be… along with two others that disappeared on this subject) released jointly by self-identified LSRJ alumni and the Center for Reproductive Rights that refers to abortion as a “human right” and is essentially a primer for activists on how to attack anti-abortion legislation using international human rights law. The video was released with participation from a former President of Fordham University’s chapter of LSRJ (also a Catholic university) and was made during the same time that Fluke was President of Georgetown’s chapter. It also foreshadows current events eerily in some places (full quotes with emphasis added after the missing video):

A woman’s right to access an abortion, like her other reproductive rights, is rooted in fundamental human rights, including the right to life, the right to health, the right to dignity, the right to equality and non-discrimination, the right to information, the right to self-determination, the right to education, the right to privacy, and the freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. [...]

Abortion bans are a prime example of discrimination against women under this framework, or at least that’s what we would argue, because only women will ever be affected by restrictions on abortion, because only women will ever get pregnant.[...]

So laws like the Hyde amendment, which withholds Federal funding for Medicaid abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or where a woman’s life is endangered, have a disproportionate effect on low-income women and women of color, and so we would argue they constitute discrimination. [...]

The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution doesn’t require the government to fund all medical services through [Medicare and Medicaid]…The Court refuses to find a constitutional obligation to treat women on Medicaid, I wouldn’t say fairly. [...]

We go around and we do interviews with people and we try to elicit or find out ways in which they have had their reproductive rights violated, and then we apply a legal analysis that shows the way those reproductive rights violations are also human rights violations. And this is sort of useful not only because I think those stories are very humanizing, but also because…it helps us move the conversation.[...]

Abortion providers are really being targeted for informal harassment and even assault and formal legislative discrimination because of the work they do, because they help women access reproductive health care services, and access abortion services, which means they’re really being attacked for helping women exercise their human rights. [...]

We’re currently working on a third fact-finding about access to care in communities where the only health care provider is a Catholic hospital, or the only existing health care provider is a Catholic hospital, or merges with a Catholic hospital and becomes a Catholic hospital, and what kinds of restrictions arise in those situations.

The video also mentions reports that try to portray abortion providers as “human rights defenders.“ One of the women in the video calls the Hyde amendment a ”human rights violation” directly. In other words, if Fluke is anything like the organization she proudly represents, then her speech before Congress had little to nothing to do with anything but abortion and contraception specifically being used in a reproductive context.

Sandra Fluke Argued for Mandatory Coverage for Sex-Change Surgery

Rather belatedly, we are becoming aware that this supposedly typical Georgetown coed is not very typical at all:

[B]irth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if “gender reassignment” surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law.
The title of the article . . . is “Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons” and was published in the Journal’s 2011 Annual Review

Remember, as Byron York previously reported, Fluke was rejected as a last-minute substitute witness at a Feb. 16 committee hearing because staffers for Chairman Issa were unable to discover Fluke’s claim to expertise relevant to the subject of the hearing. This law school journal article is the sort of thing that might have been discovered about Fluke’s background, had the Democrats who put Fluke forward as a witness done so with the usual 72-hour advance notice. Here’s one brief quote from the article:

Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered.

Now, imagine Fluke trying to defend this language about “heterosexist” policies in a public hearing, with Republican members of the committee questioning her about whether religious institutions (or private businesses, or taxpayers) should also be required to foot the bill for “gender reassignment.”

Congratulations, America: You’ve been scammed!

UPDATE: Dan Collins at The Conservatory points out that the Obama administration is already providing illegal immigrants with “hormone treatments for transgendered people.”

Of course, this only makes sense. We wouldn’t want these foreign transpeople to go back to wherever they (illegally) came from and say that they’d been the victims of American “heterosexism,” would we? Then President Obama would have to issue another apology to the foreigners we had victimized.

UPDATE II: Welcome, Mark Levin radio listeners! A few words by The Great One certainly did kick the online traffic into high gear.

UPDATE III: Linked by Evil Blogger Lady, and there is now a Memeorandum thread, aggregating further coverage by LifeNews.com, Nice Deb, Protein Wisdom, Hot Air, National Review, Riehl World View and The College Conservative.

Also linked by Bob Belvedere’s Camp of the Saints.

UPDATE IV: Ed Driscoll dubs this “Flukeaquiddick.”

Mark Levin on Sandra Fluke

Rush explains why he apologized  -  As the Blaze reported, Rush Limbaugh released a statement Saturday (Rush Releases Apology Statement to Georgetown Law Student Sandra Fluke), apologizing for using the word "slut" when he talked about Sandra Fluke on his radio show last week. As he began his program today, Limbaugh clarified his statement and explained why he issued it. Listen to the opening HERE. But of course, Obama Fluker Says Rush Limbaugh's Apology Doesn't Change Anything … 

The Alinsky, Cloward & Piven, OWS attacks from the Progressive left will just increase and intensify through the 2012 Election cycle.  This firestorm for Rush will pass, but many others with a lower profile and less funds may not be able to weather a like Progressive storm. The only real question is will enough Americans see they are being played and will those attacked be able to take the higher road under fire to avoid being ‘rushized’?  Should Obama win re-election this is just a precursor of life to come for anyone who disagrees with Team Obama’s goals and platform.

Ask Marion~

Sarah Palin Will Not Run for President

In a statement to the Mark Levin radio show Wednesday evening, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin announced that she would not be running for president in 2012.

“I believe that at this time I can be more effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office – from the nation’s governors to Congressional seats and the Presidency,” she wrote in a statement to supporters. “Know that by working together we can bring this country back – and as I’ve always said, one doesn’t need a title to help do it.”

Along with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s decision to stay out, Palin’s announcement means the field is really set.

ABC News’ Polson Kanneth reports:

Sarah Palin will not run for president.  She made the announcement in a letter to supporters Wednesday night.

Read Palin’s letter here:

October 5, 2011
Wasilla, Alaska

After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States. As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order.

My decision is based upon a review of what common sense Conservatives and Independents have accomplished, especially over the last year. I believe that at this time I can be more effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office – from the nation’s governors to Congressional seats and the Presidency. We need to continue to actively and aggressively help those who will stop the “fundamental transformation” of our nation and instead seek the restoration of our greatness, our goodness and our constitutional republic based on the rule of law.

From the bottom of my heart I thank those who have supported me and defended my record throughout the years, and encouraged me to run for President. Know that by working together we can bring this country back – and as I’ve always said, one doesn’t need a title to help do it.

I will continue driving the discussion for freedom and free markets, including in the race for President where our candidates must embrace immediate action toward energy independence through domestic resource developments of conventional energy sources, along with renewables. We must reduce tax burdens and onerous regulations that kill American industry, and our candidates must always push to minimize government to strengthen the economy and allow the private sector to create jobs.

Those will be our priorities so Americans can be confident that a smaller, smarter government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people can better serve this most exceptional nation.

In the coming weeks I will help coordinate strategies to assist in replacing the President, re-taking the Senate, and maintaining the House.

Thank you again for all your support. Let’s unite to restore this country!

God bless America.

– Sarah Palin

The Trump Factor…

Latest polls… The Donald Trumps everyone!

The Trump Rebellion

For this weekend I was originally going to write on five reasons why Obama will be re-elected in 2012. (I’ll get to that, but in the meantime checkout: Will Ignorance Lead to a Second Obama Term??)  Why the gloomy prediction? Well, for me at least, it’s primarily because this current crop of GOP hopefuls gets me about as excited as watching Joy Behar doing an interpretive dance in Borat’s thong to The Doors’ classic hit “Riders on the Storm” (the extended version) while smoking a cigar with spinach in her teeth.

Now, that doesn’t mean that I don’t like certain—or many—aspects of the various conservative contenders who are starting to jockey for position; it simply means that I think Obama the Swiffer would dust them with his billion dollar Chi-town based voter fraud fueled spin machine. That’s all.

So, what caused me to change the topic for this week’s screed? Well, I saw The Donald open up a can of verbal whup ass on Obama on Hannity last Thursday and Friday night. It was extremely convincing in that he had refreshingly solid, no-BS answers for the multifaceted debacles “the worst president ever” has entrenched us in and explained how he sees himself as the crap-cutting dealmaker to pull us out.

And it seems that I’m not alone in finding DT’s comments compelling. According to every poll out there America really digs what Donald is doing, and he’s either tied or ahead of the GOP wannabe pack. Trump is even polling better than Barack in the new Biden/Michelle Obama poll. It’s a madhouse, folks. A madhouse.

Another thing that makes me hopeful that Donald can trump Obama in 2012 is that David Plouffe, the White House’s chief ploofer, says that Trump has “zero chance” at becoming president. This translates to me as they’re shaking in their taxpayer-funded wingtips over there at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and are praying to God (or whoever the hell they pray to) that Trump doesn’t run.

I was at my favorite cigar bar in Miami this past week when one of my good conservative Cuban aficionados asked me if I could really vote for Trump, to which I said, “Uh … yeah. I voted for McCain. I still haven’t forgiven myself. Pray for me.”

Here are my buddy’s problems with Trump:

1. He’s arrogant. My answer: Well, if he is, it’s not without cause.

He’s insanely successful. There’s nothing wrong about being right. (like I am with my parenting book. I believe it’s the best book in the world on Raising Righteous and Rowdy Girls, and my nation-changing kids prove it. It’s a fact, Jack. No need to be bashful.) As far as Trump is concerned, his business accomplishments are legendary. Why shouldn’t he be proud? BHO’s main claim to fame, before Soros put the first affirmative action president into the White House, was ACORN.

2. He’s an adulterer. As a Christian and a conservative I’m supposed to shun Donald because he’s an adulterer, to which I say, according to the biblical maxim … well, aren’t we all? I believe Jesus said that if you look lustfully at a woman it’s the same as if you shagged her. One comedian put it succinctly by telling the sanctimonious who condemn those who’ve literally wandered from their marital vows by saying, “He that hath an empty hand, let him throw the first stone.”

3. Trump is not serious, and this is just a publicity stunt. Yeah? Well, it’s a value added punking as he is saying all the things to Obama and his ilk that Americans want someone with a big prime time megaphone to say.

I think the Trump Rebellion is dee-licious. It’s injecting attitude and information, not via some tepid politico but via a mogul who has had enough of Barack’s bunkum, who gets the socialistic game Hussein is hoisting on us, and who hates countries who hate and use us. Trump is probably the only one with the money (or who could get the sufficient cash) to go up against this Soros-funded re-election hell machine.

So, is The Donald the perfect candidate? Look, Spanky, no one is perfect.

Jesus was the only perfect person to schlep this rock. However, comb over be damned, I’d vote for Trump right now. My perfect candidate, however, would be an amalgam of several candidates, a combination of Donald Trump with Mitt Romney’s hair, Newt Gingrich’s grasp of American History, Mike Huckabee’s heart, and Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann’s Moxie and convictions to their beliefs. Bam! That’s gold. Pure gold.

Anyway, if DT does not take on BHO he sure as heck has shown the boys and girls looking on that you can take BHO on and not be McCain McNice about it, and giddy Americans will line up behind you because they are pig sick of how Obama is destroying our great land.

By Doug Giles whose new book "Raising Righteous and Rowdy Girls" is now available.

Stop Trashing Trump  -  Posted at Lame Cherry

It is always interesting when you see someone like Mark Levin just go off on Donald Trump. Psychologically, it means Mark Levin views Donald Trump as a threat... one weighs whether a person is a friend or a threat... if a threat, apprehension builds, then emotional outburst ensues which leads to attacks to neutralize the threat.  (If you remember, Mark has done this same thing with Glenn Beck as well, perceiving him as a threat!)

What is fascinating in how an accomplished Gentleman like Mark Levin would view Donald Trump a threat, unless he notes in Mr. Trump an upset in the apple cart which Levin and his limbs of Limbaugh and Hannity have decided who will be the Republican nominee.

I will be frank. Donald Trump is an accomplished builder of things big and extravagant. He does this immensely well in dealing with industry, union thugs, government trolls and the economy. He has had problems in marriage, has had problems in business, but that is what an American industrialist is... you have ups and downs in taking chances in life.

I view Donald Trump not in the least as a threat. I am wary of him as he did support Obama like many did, but he is saying all the right things now. I don't care as Mr. Levin nit picks about what the Donald only speaks of on a few issues, as Ronald Reagan had his triad and that is where he focused too… and it worked for him!

Could Donald Trump be using this as a publicity stunt? Sure he can be up to something, but in that I see the way of utilizing Donald Trump which Mark Levin should.

You know I really don’t get excited over Mike Huckabee and Mormon Mitt Romney (not that a Mormon seems like an issue after having a Muslim… or at least a Muslim sympathizer in the White House)... and you know you don't either, so that is why Donald Trump matters.

Obama is a fictional star on the left generated by Bush hatred and racist hysteria. The GOP stupidly runs Bob Dole and a list of real snore candidates who check their watches like old man Bush, tell their followers to shut up and go home, and then here comes Carter, Clinton or Obama outshining them like John Kennedy did Richard Nixon.

Donald Trump has star power and the GOP needs more than one star, like Sarah Palin, to appeal to an electorate now tired of patting itself on it's back for voting for an almost black guy to make them feel better for erasing their ‘White Guilt’

That is what is best about Donald Trump. He provides an intelligence and a charisma which exposes Obama for the teleprompter reader he is.  And is brings business sense and experience to the table, as does Mitt Romney.

Mr. Trump has shown pure True Grit as when Sarah Palin was backing off the Birther issue, the Donald jumped in and rode it hard to appeal to the voters who are tired of Karl Rove talking points.

The best way to deal with an issue is to bring it up, rub Obama's nose in it, shove it down Chris Matthews' throat and make them lick up the vomit when they puke it up again...  and then start all over again.

That is how the left handles Bill Clinton rape... things disgusting like Teddy Kennedy just keep getting worse and the right whines about it, but on this menace plunges creating a callous on the American psyche.

That is what is needed in America and that is what Donald Trump is achieving. He is fleshing out issues which need to be dealt with now.

I have pointed out that the Donald is not playing this right as he should be focusing on Lt. Col. Terry Lakin to put an American destroyed by Obama in this Birther issue. So I know Donald Trump is not the end all candidate and all of these children could benefit from the Inspiration I could provide... and tried to provide in previous cycles, but you know I got ignored by Romney, so that says it all about him.

Would I vote for Donald Trump over Sarah Palin? No I would not.

Would I vote for Donald Trump over Mike Huckabee? In an second, because I have had it with these moralist whiners like Huckabee who can't pull the hangman's gallows when it is their job.

That is the point in this, in I would back Donald Trump completely over B. Hussein Obama if he won the primary, but I would not vote for him as my primary candidate over other Conservatives like a Sarah Palin, Allen West... or Herman Cain, who is equal in industry to Mr. Trump and in speaking ability, but does not have the charisma Mr. Trump carries about.

Donald Trump is good for the GOP and America. I have had it with people trashing all these Conservative minded people just because they do not fit. Donald Trump is qualified as is Sarah Palin, as are most Americans, to be President, as you have to be natural born as the main qualification.

Conservatives have common sense and do well in leadership roles as it is in their nature to mind their own damn business, stick to business and keep their hands off business. That prospers the most Americans.

Mr. Trump provides flare, flash and is as close to a foreigner as I want in the White House, in his good and beautiful wife. He is the absolute anti-Obama candidate like Sarah Palin is, because they are all the things the Obamas and Bidens are not.

The Donald is also good in this, as he provides a little cover for Sarah Palin not having to be the only star on the stage now and the only one telling as it is and saying what most people with common sense want to hear. So people need to stop trashing Mr. Trump, because on his worst day he is still an American ahead of our Banana Republic President on his best day.

That said, kick the hell out of the Rovians and the Obamites, but Mr. Levin observe Reagan's 11th in that you like reminding people you worked for the President.

Donald Trump is not the problem. He is part of the solution, so utilize him for that solution and focus on the traitors… and stop fragging the people in the company.

Nuff said.

Soros, Obama and the Rest of the Cabal About to be Trumped?

Barack Obama:  International Man of Mystery

Protectourliberty.org ran ad in Washington Times.

Whose SSN is President Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama Using?  Wash Times Natl Wkly 11 Apr 2011 pg 5

O’Reilly Shamelessly Lies To Cover Obama’s Origins – Fox News Scrubs Its Site

Arizona lawmakers OK requiring proof of citizenship to run for president

Trump is requesting any information regarding Obama and others to:

Mr. Michael D. Cohen, Executive Vice President
and Special Counsel
The Trump Organization
725 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10022

Ex-IRS Man on Why Trump is Going After the Anointed One  - A Very Interesting Take

I don't know the validity of this or who wrote it, but it is interesting reading, raises a lot of questions and is good food for thought.  One can only wonder what our forefathers are thinking.  You make your own decision.

The ultimate "Birther" story….  Interesting take!  It makes sense that Trump would not take up this issue if he hadn't done his homework.  Or it could be like LBJ's famous quip: "let him deny it."

Trump is correct, Barry Soetoro, AKA Obama is hiding something in his past that is very bad... and it may not be his citizenship. (Trump would not say this if he did not know something and he has the money to get the dirt...)

As an IRS tax examiner, one of many former federal jobs, I have seen what it appears Barry Soetoro has done, mostly by illegal aliens attempting to acquire a new identity in the U.S and/or criminals looking to acquire a new ID.

Barry, AKA Obama, was lawfully adopted by a foreign national, Lolo Soetoro, and Barry's name was legally changed to "Barry Soetoro". (Barry’s own admission) Barry Soetoro was also made an official legal Indonesian citizen. (again Barry’s own admission)  The adoption would be noted in Barry's vital statistics record in Hawaii on his original birth certificate...

OR Lolo Soetoro may have always been Barry's legal birth farther. The public does not know for sure at this point who Barry's father really was and Barry himself may not know.

Barry was raised as a Muslim in Indonesia and attended a Catholic funded school that permitted all faiths to attend.

Barry's mother dropped him as a dependent for some reason, maybe even when Barry was adopted by Lolo Soetoro.  His mother's passport records dropped Barry as a dependent indicating Barry was no longer a legal dependent of his mothers. (The passport records of his mother have been produced showing Barry was no longer a dependent when Barry was permanently residing in Indonesia.) Barry went to Hawaii to live with his alleged grandparents after Lolo Soetoro and Barry's mother divorced.

A "certificate of live birth" can have names changed on it including a child's birth name, and birth parent’s names. Even a modified date of birth can be on a "certificate of live birth".  This occurs frequently for adopted children where the birth parent does not want the child to know who they are. The public has no idea who Barry’s real birth father is or who Barry’s real birth mother is. (Barry could have been adopted by his mother) The original birth certificate is the only legal vital statistics record of a person’s birth parents, birth location, birth date, etc… I can get a “certificate of live birth” for a dead person; I cannot get a birth certificate of a dead person without “Deceased” on it. (I’ve tried)

There is no evidence Barry Soetoro ever lawfully changed his name to “Barrack Hussein Obama”. There is no proof Barry Soetoro was born with the name "Barrack Hussein Obama". I’m willing to bet the name “Barrack Hussein Obama” is not present on the real birth certificate as Barry’s birth name or as Barry’s birth father. I have pictures of me with my mother and Jimmy Buffet… that doesn’t make him my father even if I start using the name Jimmy Buffet.

The public knows Barry Soetoro finished high school in Hawaii as Barry Soetoro and attended Occidental as Barry Soetoro where he did drugs and flunked out of school. After dropping out of Occidental, Barry showed up in New York, homeless and on drugs. (Barry’s own admission) Barry then hooked up with a Pakistani to live with and traveled back to Indonesia on his new boyfriend’s dime to renew his Indonesian passport and traveled to Pakistan with him.

Ask any law enforcement officer in a large city or detective and they will tell you homeless young men on drugs in large cities usually end up as male prostitutes.  Barry ended up as a world traveler with a degree… (Not likely)

Barry Soetoro returned to New York from Pakistan and began using the fictitious name “Obama” for some reason. (Again Barry Soetoro’s own admission) One could only suspect that a person addicted to drugs returning from Pakistan to New York, the main route for Afghan heroin into the U.S., maybe Barry had a reason to start using a new name. There are literally over 1 million open warrants on file in New York… maybe Barry is one of them?....

After spending some time in New York allegedly working under the name “Obama”, It appears Barry used the fictitious name "Barrack Hussein Obama" for the first time to file his federal taxes in Connecticut at a Post Office Box for the purpose of evading paying taxes in New York and /or to establish a new identity. (This is a felony with no statute of limitation.)

When the IRS received Barry Soetoro’s federal tax filing, the IRS could not attach the name Barrack Hussein Obama to the SSI number provided or the address provided. So the IRS assigned the fictitious name "Barrack Hussein Obama" a tax ID number for a person from Connecticut (Where Barry unlawfully filed a federal tax form using a false name). Barry Soetoro began using the tax ID number as his SSI number when using the fictitious name Barrack Obama. This is why Barry Soetoro has a Connecticut SSI number. When I worked for the IRS, I saw this occur more than once and yes, it is a felony to knowingly file a fraudulent federal tax forms. Most of the politicians that cheat on their taxes claim it was an accident. That is how they get away with their tax cheat crimes. Using a fake name is no accident.

It appears Barry fled New York to Chicago using his new identity to get a job. He likely ordered a fake diploma to bolster his new identity as "Obama". Fake Diploma's were very big in the 80's and diploma mills were even being used by federal workers to get promotions. There is evidence his alleged attendance at Columbia was faked (Barry never attended Columbia) and Barry lied his way into Harvard (he had no transcripts to get in)... Including telling the Saudi royal family he was fighting in Afghanistan with the Muslim Jihad against the Russians, so they would help him get into a law school.

The Saudi's apparently loved Barry's story of Jihad in Pakistan/Afghanistan and paid for Barry to attend Harvard under the name "Obama". The Saudi family has admitted to paying for Obama to attend Harvard and gave Harvard a gift of $20 million dollars. Harvard in turn made their special attendee President of the law review a person that never wrote a single law review.... I guess that is what $20 million buys at Harvard.

It is unlikely Barry was a Jihadist and was most likely a drug mule if anything, maybe even a CIA street hire to haul Afghan heroin back to New York, so the Afghans could buy U.S. made stinger missiles with U.S. dollars to shoot down Russian helicopters?... I hired people overseas to do work below my pay grade all the time, even foreign nationals... I think this is the story Barry told the Saudi's, but he was most likely really just a drug mule/dealer and probably still wanted on an outstanding warrant in New York.

Barry’s selective service registration is not normal either… http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in...

After I looked at Barry’s selective service filing I noticed it was most likely fraudulent too based on the name he used. Barry did not start using the name "Obama" until he returned from Pakistan (long after he flunked out of school in California) His selective service record (maintained in Chicago coincidentally) shows he registered at a Hawaiian post office as “Obama” in Sept 1980... Problem, Barry was getting high in California at Occidental in Sept 1980 (Barry's own admission) and was not using the fictitious name "Obama" at that time. Barry began using the fictitious name "Obama" only after he returned from Pakistan. The selective service filing is fraudulent.

NEW NOTE - On the Selective Service Registration, Barry did not have the Connecticut Tax ID number he used on the Registration until after he began using the name "Obama" in New York. More evidence his Selective Service filing is fraudulent.

Barry returned to Chicago and attended a semi-Christian radical black church with his first female love Michelle. Barry admits keeping in touch with Phil Boehner, who traveled to New York from Occidental to be with Barry and was most likely Barry's first love.

Barry still could not get a real job, because he was still a fraud, even with his Harvard degree in hand he could lie and take the Bar exam, but he could not work as a lawyer for a major law firm without a back ground investigation and he would never pass one. So, Michelle got Barry a job at her law firm. Barry never filed a case alone and never filed a motion. He wrote lots of memos according to the law firm where Barry worked. (I think they know Barry is a fraud and don't want to be sued by previous clients) Barry rescinded his law licenses, so as not to be disbarred for fraud. The Bar knows Barry lied on his application. Michelle also had to turn over her law license for her involvement in corruption with the Chicago mayor’s office.

With time on his hands Barry, a well spoken black man, was able to get elected to a state office, oddly because he looked for fraud in his opponents voter registrations and got his opponent disqualified from running. Barry a well versed liar was a natural in state politics. He used his political influence to get himself a position as a lecturer at Chicago's law school. Barry embellished this position as a "professor of law" which everyone knows is completely false. Barry was not a professor or even a specialist at anything but lying.  (If you remember, John McCain, son and grandson of “two” four star Admirals and a naval officer (and Vietnam POW  himself) in the U.S. Navy and born on a military installation in the Canal Zone in Panama was required to answer questions about where he was born.)

On a whim Barry ran for United States Senate for the State of Illinois. Politicians do this all the time to make a name for themselves even if they can't win. At the time the Republican Ryan was a shoe in for the Senate seat, so no real Democrat contenders entered the race, but Barry did. On a fluke after the primary Ryan's wife Jeri Ryan (Seven of nine from Star Trek) went public that her husband was making her have sex with other people while he watched. Ryan dropped out and Alan Keys moved from Maryland to run against Barry Soetoro.

The election got all kinds of press because there were no blacks in the U.S. Senate and one of these black men was going to be a Senator. Alan Keys did his best to warn everyone Barry was not who he claimed to be, but the public saw him as a carpet bagger. Barry kept the lie going and presented himself as a clean black man that talked like a white man... Illinois elected Barry to U.S. Senate. The Democrats had already began scrubbing Barry's back ground when Ryan dropped out.

Phil, Barry's boy friend from Occidental, was found working in California as a communications specialist (receptionist) for a dental hygienist school and given a diploma from Columbia and cover story. The rest of Barry's drug friends were all given jobs or money by the Democrat machine to keep quiet.

Because Barry was such a news maker as the only Black in the Senate, and he could speak like a white man he was made key speaker for the Democrat convention. Barry then decided to run for President to keep the lie going. No one thought to question Barry's back ground in the Democrat party... They helped cover up the ugly back ground. The only person jumping up and down warning Barry was not who he claimed to be was Allen Keys and he was discarded as just an angry loser.

Now we have a complete fraud sitting in the Office of the President. Clearly the most corrupt, inexperienced, and ignorant President in the history of the United States who's only quality is that he can lie with a straight face.

Barry Soetoro is as much of a fraud as Bernie Madoff and his house of cards will soon fall down.

Related:

McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompt Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out 

EXCLUSIVE:  Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration?... 

Shorebank, Obama’s Mother and Geithner’s Father – Hmmmm… Coincidences?  - 

Coil of Rage 

Bombshell: Barack Obama Conclusively Outed as a CIA Creation 

O’Reilly Shamelessly Lies to Cover Obama’s Origins – Fox News Scrubs Its Site 

Newspaper Publishers in the Black Community Think Barack Obama is Foreign Born