The “One Nation Under God” Highway

America is in trouble because she took a hard left turn off the right road. Time to turn this bus around on November 4th, 2014.


An Open letter to the Democrat Party of Florida


Christian Ulvert (left) with boyfriend Carlos Andrade.

Dear Democrat Party of Florida,

First let me congratulate Christian Ulvert. I understand he just married his long time boy friend Carlos Andrade. Christian is the Florida Democratic Party’s new political director. He married his partner Carlos in Washington, D.C. last week in a ceremony that they couldn’t have in their home state. It was more of a quick in and out ceremony. In honor of this marriage all liquid soap in hotel rooms in Miami has been changed to powered soap to ensure a longer wait time during the pick up process. This could encourage playful banter but none the less bring your own soap now boys and girls when you visit Miami.

I am sure Carlos has his Green Card or is at least here legally. If not its OK, as he can still get in state tuition and can become an attorney. Thank you Republican Party of Florida and the Florida Supreme Court.

Nicholas J. Pellito is the Director of Democrat Party Affairs for Florida. He must be managing Charlie Crist and Bill Clinton’s calendar. Just assuming. More of the quick in and out stuff I am sure. All hard drives will be accidentally lost and written over (perhaps) if we ever request a Freedom of Information Act request to look at all the in house party emails.

Sarah Smith, the new Finance Director, will be responsible for the redistribution of wealth from the pockets of Florida taxpayers to her purse just as soon as they can get rid of the TEA Party. Its not looking too hopeful so I reckon they will push ahead for a massive gas tax increase and destroy what’s left of the Democrat Party in the process.

allison tant

Allison Tant

Allison Tant is the Florida Democrats Chairwoman. Allison Tant has had major problems leading the Democrat Party. Tant was front and center when Allie Braswell announced he was running for state Chief Financial Officer. When Braswell pulled out of the race a few days later after revelations that he had filed for personal bankruptcy numerous times, she was left holding the bag. Looks like Florida Democrats are good at one thing – spending money they don’t have and filing bankruptcy to escape justice for their philandering’s.

The Florida Democrat Party does offer internships and are currently accepting applications. FDP internships for credit require a minimum of one semester or one summer in length. All internships are unpaid and generally require a time commitment of 10 to 20 hours a week. All student loans will be waived and passed onto the taxpayers.

Qualified interns should:

(1) Be members of the Communist Party USA;
(2) Support Gay marriage;
(3) Run up their parent’s credit card at college;
(4) Have a working understanding of Mein Kempf; and
(5) Swear a blood oath of allegiance to President Barrack H. Obama.

The Florida Democrat Party also has a long and proud history of defending civil rights and expanding opportunity for all Americans. This culminated in placing in power Barack Obama, who was half white. Before that though the Democrats pretty much created the Klu Klux Klan and voted against every single civil rights bill prior to JFK. We won’t mention that they filibustered the civil rights act of 1964. On June 10, 1964, for the first time in its history, cloture was invoked on a civil rights bill, ending a record-breaking filibuster by Democrats that had consumed fifty-seven working days. The hero of the hour was minority leader Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen (R-IL). YES THE GOP SAVED THE DAY! The Democrats were spanked again just like they will be on November 4th, 2014.

Pack your bags, clean out your cubicles and hold your breathe intermittently for 3 minutes every 30 minutes to reduce CO2 emissions when you exhale. Al Gore will surely start to tax it.

Have a wonderful evening Florida Democrats. Start saving your pennies to pay for your soon to be expanded price of health insurance premiums, gasoline and consumer goods, like food.

I know you all want a progressive centralized single payer system like the Veterans Administration. Your days of harming this country are coming to an end and soon you will be all fired on November 4th, 2014. Or most of you any way.


Marriage Supporters March Today in D.C.
Is the Media All Out for Same-Sex Marriage?

Politifact: Framers of Florida’s Medical Marijuana Amendment Repeatedly Kept Language Vague

Tallahassee, Fla. – The Vote No on 2 Campaign highlighted Politifact’s examination of the “drug dealer” loophole and whether obtaining permission to be a caregiver is easy.  As written, Amendment 2 only contains one requirement to become a caregiver – that the individual be 21 years of age or older.  Politifact determined that it would be “premature” to rate the claim because the framers of the Amendment repeatedly (and intentionally) kept Amendment 2 vague.

Politifact writes: “But when it comes to comparing whether it’s easier to obtain caregiver status than it is to get a drivers license, there’s just no way to know yet, since the amendment’s framers have repeatedly kept things vague.”

“Politifact reaffirmed what we have been saying all along: That the framers of this Amendment are intentionally misleading voters,” said Sarah Bascom, spokesperson for the Vote No on 2 Campaign.  “Amendment 2 is written so vaguely that it has created enormous loopholes, loopholes that are dangerous and will cause real harm to Floridians.”

“And, the drug dealer loophole, which allows so-called ‘caregivers’ to distribute pot to their ‘patients’ without requiring any prior medical training, is only the beginning,” said Bascom.  “Floridians deserve better.  They deserve to know the truth behind Amendment 2, not just a smoke and mirrors misinformation campaign led by proponents of Amendment 2 who really, ultimately want the full legalization of pot.”

Politifact also cites arguments from Vote No on 2 supporter and Constitutional Attorney Susan Kelsey who says: “The pivotal point is the distinction between what Amendment 2, as written, requires, and what may be implemented later.” Kelsey continued: “Our claim is that Amendment 2 itself does not impose any requirements on people seeking to be caregivers other than their age and their agreement to serve as caregivers.”

To read the full article, click here.


The Vote No on 2 Campaign is a grassroots campaign, bringing the truth about Amendment 2 to the voters of Florida.  Its coalition includes members of law enforcement, business leaders, constitutional law attorneys, doctors and other medical professionals, parents and Floridians from all walks of life.  Amendment 2 is simply a guise to legalize pot smoking in Florida and the goal of this campaign is to point out the loopholes and explain why this Amendment is bad for Florida.

For more information on the Vote No on 2 Campaign, please visit, follow on Twitter at @saynoamendment2 and on Facebook at

Republicans Should Learn from Cantor’s Mistake

Last week’s defeat of House Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor sent shock waves throughout D.C. like I have never seen before.  But, in Cantor’s defeat, I see great opportunity for the Republican Party to make inroads into the Black community.

Cantor represents Virginia’s 7th Congressional District, which is a suburb of Richmond.  According to the 2010 U.S. Census, it has a population of 757,917 (74.3 percent White, 17.1 percent Black), median income of $ 64,751. In other words, it is the definition of a middle-class district.  The district is rated as a solid Republican (R+10).

Before we can understand how Republicans can learn from this, we must understand why Cantor lost. It was a total repudiation of the lack of leadership and vision within the Republican congressional leadership.

How could Cantor justify supporting amnesty for illegals when there are 50 million Americans out of work? How could he justify giving in-state tuition to illegals when American-born Americans can barely afford college?

How could Cantor justify illegal children getting accommodations at a 5-star military base when American children are being moved from homeless shelter to homeless shelter?

Cantor’s constituents (Black and White) were asking him some very simple questions:  Who is looking out for me and my interests?  My husband has been laid off and has been seeking employment for two years, so we can’t afford to send our child to college. Why are our tax dollars going to pay for the education of those in the country illegally? Where is the help for those of us who were born here?

We are building bridges and roads in foreign countries, while ours are falling apart. We have recently returned war veterans living on the streets, while we put illegals in hotels and on military bases. Our troops are eating meals ready to eat (MREs) and illegals are complaining about the burritos they are being served.

With 17.1 percent of Cantor’s constituents being Black, he should have known that he was on the wrong side of the amnesty issue.  Blacks are the single largest demographic group that opposes amnesty, despite support from such Black groups as the NAACP, the National Urban League, and the Congressional Black Caucus.  These groups do not reflect the views of the average Black voter. If Cantor had some Blacks on his staff and working in his campaign, he would have known that.

If Cantor had some credible Blacks around him, he would have known that Blacks are thoroughly disillusioned with Obama and his policies and they are willing to look at supporting a “viable” Republican alternative.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistic (BLS), the national unemployment rate is 6.3 percent and for Blacks 11.5 percent. So why would a Black person vote for someone who supports importing more competition from illegals for low and unskilled jobs?

Under Obama, according to the Census Bureau, the poverty rate for Blacks went from 12 percent in 2008 to its current 16.1 percent; median income decreased by 3.6 percent for White households to $ 58,000, but fell 10.9 percent to $ 33,500 for Black households.

Republicans fail to see that immigration is a cross-over issue that unites both Blacks and Whites.

Paul E. Peterson, professor of government at Harvard University, wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “Gains under the Obama administration by all students range between minimal and nonexistent, and the black-white gap on test scores threatens to widen after having narrowed steadily over the previous nine years [the Bush years].”

Obama has done everything in his power to sabotage Blacks having access to better educational opportunities. Just last year Obama’s Justice Department filed a lawsuit to block Louisiana’s tuition voucher program, which has produced significant improvement for Blacks and Hispanics. The Washington Post’s editorial board blasted Obama stating that he wanted, “to trap poor black children in ineffective schools.”

Mixed messages coming from our congressional leadership is fueling the anger that was on display in the Cantor race: We Republicans claim to support the middle class, fight for Americans, support our troops, and represent “real America.”

Last time I checked, America is a very diverse nation, but it is not reflected within our congressional leadership, their staffs, or their advisers.

Cantor surrounded himself with his usual White consultants who had no one around them with a different perspective on any of the issues.  This campaign was exhibit A in why diversity is necessary within our party.

But, can someone explain to me how a national party leader in the 21st century doesn’t notice that he has no Blacks on his personal or leadership staff?  He’ll have plenty of time to think about it in coming years.

Meanwhile, other Republicans need to take heed.

Most Republicans are not aware that Mitt Romney received 20 percent of the Black vote from males between ages 20-30 (though he received only 6 percent nationally).  So this notion about Obama having a stranglehold on the Black vote is pure fiction.

Neither the Republican Party nor the Tea Party are racist.  They both have been horrible in the area of communications.  They both have allowed the media and liberal to brand them as racists and have done nothing to counter the charges.  So, a lie oft repeated becomes the truth. If Cantor’s loss causes our congressional leadership to realize that they need to actively engage the Black community on substantive issues, then it will be a worthwhile loss.  If they continue what they have been doing; then they will become as the sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. – See more at:

Mr. Sami Goes to Washington!

As we move through our investigative series, The Wizard of “K” Street, we ran across a “unique” Muslim Imam who seems to be a very aggressive supporter of Muslim Brotherhood collaborator, Grover Norquist. The Imam, Mr. Sami Al Arian-owitz, was at the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) passing out a book that actually exposes Norquist as a Muslim Brotherhood agent!

Click here for a free copy of Agent of Influence: Grover Norquist and the Assault on the Right

Apparently, Sami Al-Arian-owitz takes pride in the fact that Grover has infiltrated the Conservative movement in America and influences many politicians, moving them away from traditional Constitutional principles. Sit back and enjoy the words and actions of Mr. Sami, who goes to Washington!


Action Step Norquist must go

Click on the image to take action against Grover Norquist.

As we move through this micro-series you will see how Norquist’s nefarious work impacts YOU on a daily basis in the areas of: IMMIGRATION, ISLAM, ISRAEL, IRAN.

RACE BAITING ALERT: Shame on Jonathan Capehart

Mr. Capehart, your Washington Post hit piece insidiously designed to smear Chris McDaniel who is a decent and honorable man goes beyond the pale of low-rent race-baiting politicking. But, I get it. You are black which grants you carte blanche to irresponsibility yell racism in a crowded political theater whenever it fits your fancy.

We know the drill. You want to take out a bold, outspoken, popular conservative Republican, by calling him/her a racist. The accused Republican is then supposed to cower in fear and spend time and resources explaining when they stopped figuratively beating their wife. Well, that “ain’t” happening this time. As a black American, I find your tactic deplorable, divisive, racist and evil.

Yes, I said evil. In our sophisticated times, the “e” word is seldom used. But, I call it like I see it. In typical Democratic party manipulative, race-baiting and hate inspiring fashion, you guys take everything to it’s ultimate extreme.

For example. McDaniel along with millions of Americans have had enough of Obama’s unlawful power grabs, trashing of the Constitution, lies and bullying of Americans who dare to challenge him. Obama even said, “We punish our enemies”.

You Mr. Capehart have despicably attempted to smear and silence McDaniel and the millions of Americans who oppose the tyranny of Obama acting like our king. You have attempted to brand them a bunch of anti-government extremists, racists and gun toting fanatics in solidarity with murderers. Your accusation is outrageous. Dear Lord, have you no shame? Whatever happened to reasonable political debate?

But that is how you guys roll on the Left these days. No tactic is too low, too despicable or too racially polarizing. National race relations be damned as long as your liberal, big government advocating candidate wins and the socialist/progressive agenda is further implemented. Long gone is my dad’s Democratic Party.

The mission of the Democratic Party is tyranny. Agree with everything we force down your throats or we will destroy you; expect an audit from the IRS, a visit from the EPA or armed federal agents showing up at your home.

Mr. Capehart, your unconscionable attempt to gin-up hate will fail. My faith tells me that good triumphs over evil. Chris McDaniel is a good man; a strong conservative voice for We the American People.

With millions of Americans in his corner, McDaniel will emerge victorious in the June 24Tth Mississippi runoff election. We have right and God on our side.

Governor Susanna Martinez: Best Presidential Candidate in 2016

The most important issue in the 2016 presidential election is making sure Obama’s residual team and his destructive ideologies are gone from the executive branch. That means the democratic candidate must lose, regardless of single issues, regardless of ethnicity, race, and social leanings. The overall safety and security of America, on the economic scene as well as international, are the two most vital arenas for selecting a new administration, far and above whether we agree on abortions, gay marriage, immigration and other issues that are less encompassing. Obviously, it will be up to the republican party to make this happen.

We must not lose sight of the big picture.

I’m no great lover of the republican party. I agree that past Republican presidents have had their share of misgivings. But nothing compares with the dismantling of our civil rights and the security of this nation, than the processes put in place by the current dictator in chief. The international scene – throughout the world – is in a state of chaos, and our nation is far less respected than it was six years ago.

I’ve been watching the probable players lining up, posturing, pandering for cash, writing books, appearing often on television, taking sides on issues, etc., and I see no one who has a chance at beating another minority in a national election, particularly a female in the form of Hillary Clinton.

With the exception of Doctor Ben Carson, who has no political experience at all, there are no blacks who are winnable. Senator Tim Scott is too new in the senate. Allen West was only a one-termer, and – while I consider him a great man – he is too vulnerable for several reasons. Condoleeza Rice cannot survive left wing criticism for Iraq.

Latinos have Sen. Ted Cruz, who cannot be elected because he was born in a foreign country. That’s just a fact. Sen. Marco Rubio, a Cuban/American, may attract a slice of the Hispanic voters, but not as much as would a candidate of Mexican heritage. Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee and Jeb Bush – while all qualified – are all stereotypical white males, the same old cloth.  And, where are the front running republican women? In these changing times where minorities are on the way toward collectively making up the majority, we must face reality. The democrats are far ahead of the republicans in that mode of thinking.

The best qualified republican candidate to oppose any minority or female in the next race would be Susanna Martinez, Governor of New Mexico. Born in New Mexico, Gov. Martinez is a former prosecutor and District Attorney for three terms, from 1997 to 2011. She was elected governor in 2010, in a predominantly democratic state. She has a remarkable record, rate 8th best governor in the country by theWashington Post, and enjoys a 66% approval rating in her state.

It’s easy to cherry-pick and find fault with any single candidate which would apply to Martinez as well, and all politicians. But, this is a woman who would attract voters from both sides of the political spectrum, as well as women and all minorities. And, her record as a successful prosecutor is a strong indicator that she knows how to make important decisions and will stand up for the laws and security of our nation.

Besides, she is married 30 years to a law enforcement officer, and under sheriff of the Dona Ana County Sheriff’s Department.

Not only must we nominate someone who is very good, we must nominate someone who is very electable. For those who agree, the time is now to start working for grass roots support in a Susanna Martinez candidacy.

Check out her record and personal data on the links below:

Click here: Susana Martínez – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click here: Susana Martinez | 2016 Republican Presidential Candidates

Click here: Susana Martinez: U.S. Overdue for Female President | RealClearPolitics

President Hillary? No Way! She Should Be Done.

I could not believe what I had just heard on my TV. I was outraged. I was angry. Is this woman a complete idiot or is she the most condescending, arrogant and self-serving politician on the planet? This was my reaction upon hearing Hillary Clinton say regarding the Taliban five, “These five guys are not a threat to the United States.” 

This statement alone should disqualify a Hillary Clinton presidency from ever seeing the light of day. There are only two reasons that she would make such an absurd statement; both are pretty scary coming from the possible leader of the free world.

Reason number one: Hillary truly is clueless and has totally bought into Obama’s false narrative which says because Osama is dead terrorism is over. Numerous attacks which include the Boston Marathon bombing and the attack on our U.S. Consulate in Benghazi prove Obama’s narrative is nothing more than a self-serving political lie. Do you see a pattern with this Administration; Obama, Hillary and company?

The second reason for Hillary making such an obviously insane statement is she assumes the American people are idiots. Low-info voters. Clueless. Talk about in your face disrespect. My goodness, this woman is so offensively arrogant and superior minded that she believes she can look into the TV camera and tell us it is sunny in the midst of a thunder storm.

Please forgive me if you think I am making too big of a deal about this. But folks, Hillary’s statement speaks volumes about who she is and who she thinks we are. For crying out loud, experts and politicians across the board are expressing bipartisan enormous concern, fear and outrage over Obama releasing these five Taliban generals.

A majority of the American people know Obama made a horrible deal and are concerned about national security and more terrorist attacks. Everyone, I repeat everyone, knows we are less safe.

And yet, the person who seeks to become our new Commander-in-Chief says, chill out, releasing the worst-of-the-worst terrorists and providing them aid and comfort is no big deal.

In my way of thinking, this exposure of Hillary’s mindset should immediately disqualify this either extremely naïve liberal or off-the-chain arrogant person from ever moving back into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

RELATED VIDEO: Daniel Greenfield, the Brilliant, Shillman Journalism Fellow gives his assessment of Hillary Clinton’s bizarre claim that her debacle at Benghazi is a good reason for her to run for President!

It’s Not Easy Being a Democrat

As an implacable enemy of liberals and Democrats, I have often been asked my opinion of the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Although there are many differences, depending on the issue at hand, I see one major difference that covers a multitude of sins.  It all has to do with human nature and the way in which people of differing political ideologies either exploit it or respond to it.

Conservatives and Republicans understand human nature.  Consequently, in everything they do in terms of government programs and public policy initiatives, they always attempt as much as possible to insure that human nature doesn’t become a negative.  Understanding that human nature will invariably tempt some to cut corners, taking advantage of opportunities to enrich themselves at the expense of others, Republicans can always be trusted to close loopholes in advance to prevent that from happening.

Conversely, liberals and Democrats also understand human nature.  However, in everything they attempt to do in terms of government programs and public policy initiatives, they can always be counted upon to create loopholes, taking advantage of the seamier side of human nature.  It is an article of faith among Democrats that, if they can’t attract adherents intellectually with solid arguments to support their leftist agenda, the only thing left to do is to buy as many votes as they can… with other people’s money, of course.

However, while the difference between conservatives and liberals and between Republicans and Democrats is an important consideration, a more important question… far more important to the future of our republic… is the difference between rank-and-file Democrats and the liberal elites who do their thinking for them.  This dichotomy was the subject of a recent telephone debate between Rush Limbaugh and a conservative caller named Jennifer, from Lancaster, Ohio.  In order to accurately relate the specifics of their debate, I will quote extensively from the transcript of their conversation.  She had two points to make:

First, she referred to an earlier sound byte in which a liberal caller had accused Rush of not really believing the things he said, saying that Rush only says the things he says in order to “gin up” his audience.  She went on to say that what the liberal caller accused Rush of doing is precisely what liberals themselves do.  It was a classic case of ideological projection.  The liberal caller was merely projecting onto Rush the fact that liberals rarely believe what they claim to believe.  She explained that it’s “just part of their script… part of their shtick… part of their spiel.”

Her opinion was that liberals and Democrats, being unable to recognize the difference between firmly held beliefs and things that are said only to tell listeners what we think they wish to hear, simply assume that conservatives and Republicans are equally as duplicitous as they are.

Finally, she recalled a point articulated by a caller several weeks earlier.  That caller argued that, when individuals have firmly held beliefs, they not only accept those beliefs as part of who they are, they give others the freedom to hold differing opinions.  They’re not concerned when others disagree with them because they are secure in their own beliefs.

She went on to explain that most liberals, particularly rank-and-file Democrats, really don’t have firmly-held beliefs.  Instead, they are constantly bullied and pressured by their liberal elites into adopting politically correct positions.  And because they are constantly forced to yield to what is politically correct, in spite of whatever partially-formed views they may have, they become very angry when confronted by conservatives and Republicans who have well-founded and firmly-held beliefs.  And since we conservatives believe what we believe and refuse to compromise our values as they do, their only alternative is anger, name-calling, and character assassination.

Rush was not in total agreement.  He argued that there are varying degrees and kinds of liberals: a) the ideologues, b) the leaders, and c) the rank-and-file who are just trying to be cool, trying to be “hip.”  He argued that, in every liberal constituency, there are varying degrees of conviction, but that a great many liberals actually believe everything they say.

The caller argued that, yes, there are liberals and Democrats who believe everything they say, but they represent only a tiny fraction of the political left.  Instead, most rank-and-file liberals and Democrats go along to get along because they can’t handle the pressure of what is anathema to leftists: the agonizing social stigma associated with appearing to be different.

In response, Rush agreed that, particularly among young people, the peer pressure to support gay rights, to be pro-choice and support abortion, and to support other articles of liberal orthodoxy is intense.  He said, “Whatever they think the majority opinion is on something they’ll go with it and take the path of least resonance, which is essentially what you’re saying they do.  And then, when it comes time for them to explain what they believe, they can’t.”

He also agreed that, “If you are totally confident in what you believe, you don’t care… bring ‘em on.  You’ll be glad to take a shot at it and try to change their mind.  Or you’ll be happy to tell them why you think what you think.  Leftists don’t want to go there.  They can’t go there because they can’t explain.  All they want to do is silence any opposition.”

Rush argued, “Here’s the risk that we’re running if you think they don’t really believe… I think that it’d be much easier to change their minds if they really didn’t believe it.  I think it’s a little bit more complicated than this.  I mean, there’s a massive desire on the part of the left to just shut up people who don’t agree with them.

“But nevertheless, when you are going to posit the opinion (that) liberals don’t really believe what they (say they) believe, that’s dangerous… Let’s put it this way: It makes them sound a little bit more harmless than they are, and I don’t think it’s accurate to say they don’t believe it.  Now, I understand with certain levels of liberalism, you’ve got the low-information (voters).  I think the low-information voting bloc out there is not even ideological.  The low-information (people), they’re just like one of my dogs.”

The caller replied, “That’s part of my point.  Not only can they not articulate their position because they truly don’t have one… they’re just accepting, caving to pressure… not just being unable to articulate their point, but truly being angry… I think that anger comes not from a righteous indignation… they don’t understand that there can be differences of opinion, and that’s (the source of) their anger.

The caller conceded that what Rush said about the hard core leftists… which Rush estimated to be about 3% of the Democrat Party… is true.  They truly believe what they say.  However, she argued that the millenials are another matter.  She said, “I see so many of these memes on Facebook from the millennials and they’ll go straight from a conservative meme to a leftist, left-leaning meme, and I’m like, ‘You don’t even understand both sides of the issue.  You’re here, but you can’t argue both sides of it.  You really don’t know.’  They buy into the low-information argument and… they really can’t articulate it.”

I don’t often disagree with Rush Limbaugh, but in this instance I must because his caller was right.  The vast majority of Democratic voters haven’t the foggiest notion of why they vote as they do.  And if we were to ask them to explain themselves we can be sure that we would very quickly be the target of an angry outburst and, at the very least, our parentage would be called into question.  Unfortunately, that is the state of politics in America in the 20th and 21st centuries.

When  Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and other Democrats propose, for example, that the Congress increase the minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10, a 39.3% increase, they know that the increase would reduce the number of entry-level jobs by at least 15%, doing the greatest damage to job prospects for minority teens.  Yet, they sell the idea to their low-information voter base as if the law of supply-and-demand had been repealed.

I’m sure that Barack Obama, as he faces Mecca and kneels on his prayer rug at bedtime each night, thanks Allah for political correctness.  Why?  Because, without political correctness, he could never have been elected and the Democrat Party could not exist.  He is the principal beneficiary of the ignorance of the masses and he’ll never do anything to change that.

In his May 23 Watters World segment on Fox News, O’Reilly Factor producer Jesse Watters questioned twelve Obama voters on the streets of Philadelphia.  Watters asked each of them five questions: 1) What is the significance of the thirteen stripes on the U.S. flag?  2) How many senators are there in the U.S. Senate?  3) What economic system does the U.S. utilize?  4) Who was president of the United States during World War II? And 5) In what month do we hold our General Elections?  Of the twelve Obama voters quizzed, only one could answer all five questions correctly, and only three others were able to answer at least three correctly.

On one hand, it’s easy to be a Democrat because it’s not necessary to spend a great deal of time and effort studying the issues, figuring out what’s right and what’s wrong, and determining how each of us might be personally impacted by various laws and regulations.  All that is required of them is that they vote exactly as party leaders and union leaders dictate.

On the other hand, it’s not easy being a Democrat because of the terrible frustration associated with being unable to justify one’s fidelity to a cause one doesn’t understand and can never defend.  To conservatives and Republicans, being a Democrat might look like a no-brainer, but it’s not as easy as it looks.  As John Wayne once remarked in the movie, Sands of Iwo Jima, “Life is tough, but it’s a lot tougher when you’re stupid.

Hillary: Benghazi “More of a Reason to Run for President.” What?

Daniel Greenfield, the Brilliant, Shillman Journalism Fellow gives his assessment of Hillary Clinton’s bizarre claim that her debacle at Benghazi is a good reason for her to run for President!


US Spy Agencies Knew During Benghazi Attack Who Was Doing the Attacking
NPR host feels the wrath of Hillary while questioning her gay marriage stance
‘One Broke Girl’: Mad Magazine presents Hillary’s ridiculous new sitcom

President Chris Christie?

A fatal crash on the George Washington Bridge this morning caused major backups, trapping commuters for up to three hours and stalling traffic back to the Garden State Parkway and other highways leading to the bridge. After Gov. Chris Christie spent two hours answering every question reporters asked following the revelation that an aide—whom he fired immediately—had engineered a comparable problem I had no problem believing he had nothing to do with it.

I am New Jersey born and raised, and I have lived here most of my life with time out to attend the University of Miami in Florida and Army service in Georgia. I have traveled all over the U.S., but I always was happy to come home to a little town, a suburb of Newark where I was born. These days I live one town over, having sold my home of more than 60 years because the property taxes here are for many of my generation a burden,

I tell you this because Gov, Chris Christie’s life has a number of connections to my own. He too was born in Newark and his father, like mine, was a certified public accountant. A 1984 graduate of Delaware, he earned his law degree from Seton Hall University School of Law in the community where I have lived for a decade.

Like many in the Garden State I became aware of Christopher James “Chris” Christie when he served as a United States Attorney, appointed to the position by George W. Bush in 2002 and serving until 2008. During that time, he amassed an impressive record of convictions with an emphasis on corrupt politicians along with sexual slavery, arms trafficking, racketeering by gangs, and other federal crimes.

In January 2009 he declared his candidacy for Governor and, in November, he defeated incumbent Jon Corzine who, like his predecessors, had driven up taxes while never really solving the state’s budget problems. In his first term, Gov. Christie drove a number of hard bargains with the state’s civil service unions, primarily the teachers union. When he won reelection to a second term in November 2013, he became the first Republican to earn more than fifty percent of the vote in a quarter-century.

New Jersey is a blue state, heavily Democratic politically, and his reelection quite naturally made Republicans nationwide take notice. He is also a very savvy politician and not one to make every decision along strict ideological grounds.

In his first term he achieved a remarkably good working relationship with the state’s Democratic legislature. After Superstorm Sandy hit New Jersey n 2012, wreaking heavy damage to shore communities, he was quite visible in the company of President Obama when he paid a visit when he was also campaigning for reelection. That paid off in significant federal funds to help rebuild. Christie agreed to expand the state’s Medicaid problem under Obama’s health law. He vetoed a bill that would sanction gay marriage, but declined to appeal a court ruling that legalized it.

Like other Governors in states with Democratic legislatures, Christie inherited massive budget deficits. In his first term he bargained with the New Jersey Education Association and the Communications Workers of America, two of a dozen civil service unions, to increase their members’ payments toward pensions and medical benefits, but in turn they won bigger payments by the state into their troubled retirement fund.

Faced with yet another budget gap, Gov. Christie proposed taking $2.4 billion meant for the pension system in order to achieve a balanced budget because, as he said, there is nowhere else to find the money other than to raise taxes or reduce spending for schools or hospitals. He bluntly said that the state cannot afford the level of benefits it provides public workers. As this is written, fourteen unions for teachers, police officers, firefighters and state workers have filed lawsuits to stop Christie’s transfer of funds to the budget.

In January “bridgegate” erupted when it became known that one of his aides had apparently urged highway lane closures to the George Washington Bridge as political retribution against a Democratic mayor who did not endorse him for re-elections. In response he devoted two hours to a press conference in which he answered every question, denying any knowledge of the aide’s action and, to date, hearings by the state legislature have been unable to connect him personally to it. The Democratic Party and liberal media saw it as an opportunity to eliminate him as a potential presidential candidate in 2016.

“Bridgegate” is losing traction and is not likely to play a role in any decision he makes to run for President. The cost of defending himself and members of his administration has cost New Jersey taxpayers $3 million in legal fees at this point. In a hearing, Christie’s chief of staff deemed it “a major distraction.”

Conversely, he has remained very popular within the Republican Party, despite ideological divisions. He is currently chairman of the Republican Governors Association, giving him regular access to some of the Party’s leading national donors. He is a welcome speaker at many GOP conferences.

To the question, will he announce his candidacy for the presidency, he remains uncommitted to the decision and, at this point, that’s a wise course of action. Christie has, in his usual blunt fashion, said of any suggestion that being from a northeastern state, “I hear people all the time saying, ‘You wouldn’t play well in the South’ or ‘You wouldn’t play well in Iowa’—It’s all garbage.”

“In the end,” says Christie, “people like people who are genuine and who are real. I think they’re willing to cut you slack even if they don’t agree with you on certain things if they think you’re being genuine and authentic”, adding “I would rather lose than try to pretend to be somebody else.”

Virtually alone among Republicans who might contend for the GOP nomination and the presidency, Gov. Christie is what you see and what you hear. If he does secure the nomination that will be a major factor in 2016 and will guarantee a tough fight for the Democratic candidate.

Would I vote for him? Sure. And I would also be happy to vote for Ted Cruz and Allen West it they were the GOP candidate.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Viguerie: Virginia Voters Sent GOP Leaders a Message – Fight for Our Principles

MANASSAS, Va., June 11, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Richard A. Viguerie, author of TAKEOVER, The 100-Year War for the Soul of the GOP and How Conservatives Can Finally Win It, and conservative political marketing pioneer, issued the following analysis in the wake of David Brat’s historic defeat of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in Tuesday’s Virginia Republican primary election.

“Tens of thousands of Republican voters in Virginia 7 received the letters I sent in the closing days of the campaign in support of Dave Brat and to drive his message of change in Washington. Eric Cantor’s defeat will have positive results for conservatives far beyond the immediate effect of killing Cantor’s amnesty for illegal aliens plan.” (View a sample of my two letters through this link.)

“While the House Republican leadership has been thrown into disarray by Eric Cantor’s defeat, rank and file Republicans got the message loud and clear. Eric Cantor’s defeat will have the salutary effect of stiffening the spines of House Republicans.”

“Eric Cantor’s defeat also guarantees more gridlock in Washington and no progress on Obama’s agenda during the final two years of his presidency. Conservatives in the House are now emboldened to fight and the grassroots are energized like never before; there will be no amnesty bill, no job killing climate change legislation and no chance that House conservatives can be browbeaten into going along with other so-called compromises with Obama that grow spending and government.”

“As I pointed out in my new book TAKEOVER, Eric Cantor had become fully invested in House Speaker John Boehner’s lobbyist-driven legislative agenda. From breaking the spending caps in the sequester to voting for the Wall Street bailout through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), Cantor always sided with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Capitol Hill establishment when faced with a choice between growing government and fighting for limited-government constitutional conservative principles. Amnesty for illegal aliens was just the latest in a long list of betrayals conservatives suffered at the hands of Eric Cantor.”

“The real reason Cantor lost is not amnesty; it is that grassroots limited government constitutional conservative voters wanted to send a message that they are fed-up with having their views and values arrogantly ignored and disrespected by Washington’s Republican professional political class.”


Richard A. Viguerie pioneered political direct mail and has been called “one of the creators of the modern conservative movement” (The Nation) and one of the “conservatives of the century” (Washington Times).  He is the author of the new book, Takeover: The 100-Year War for the Soul of the GOP and How Conservatives Can Finally Win It.

What does Rep. Eric Cantor’s Primary Loss in Virginia Really Signify?

Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s hopes to replace House Speaker John Boehner were crushed with his defeat by Randolph Macon Economics Professor David Brat by 11 points, 56% to 45% in Virginia’s Tuesday primary. After the stunning upset victory in suburban Richmond, Virginia’s 7th Congressional District by Republican challenger David Brat, a self-styled Tea Party libertarian, Republican Party leaders are confounded about future prospects. They are concerned about House contests and national mid-term and Presidential elections in both 2014 and 2016. Long term Virginia 7th C.D. incumbent Republican and US House of Representatives Majority Leader Eric Cantor has no choice but to resign forcing the House GOP majority to elect a new leader. Because of the immigration issue raised in this defeat of Cantor by Tea Party upstart Brat this could be a further warning to House Speaker John Boehner that he might face similar prospects in his home district in Ohio this November. The Wall Street Journal in its report on Cantor’s upset loss to ‘underfunded’ Brat commented:

Mr. Cantor’s defeat marked an unexpected and staggering turn in this year’s primary-election season, overturning the building narrative that Republican Party leaders and allied business groups had trampled the GOP’s tea-party wing, which has fought to push the party to the political right.

Mr. Cantor’s defeat could reshape many areas of policy in Congress, foremost the prospects for immigration legislation. Many Republican leaders say the GOP won’t make gains with the fast-growing Hispanic population unless it helps to liberalize immigration laws and grant legal status to some illegal immigrants. House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) has said he wants to take up the issue, but opposition from conservatives in his ranks has stalled the effort.

In his largely under-the-radar campaign, Mr. Brat, 49 years old, primarily sought to cast himself as more conservative than Mr. Cantor on immigration policy. He also criticized the GOP leader’s alliance with business groups and his record on fiscal issues, particularly his votes to raise the federal borrowing limit, casting Mr. Cantor as part of a leadership team that he argued had grown disconnected from its constituents.

While many are shocked about the Brat primary victory that dethroned House Majority leader Eric Cantor, we do not believe it was because he is Jewish. Rather, it is reflective of the extreme polarization of both parties. Democrats who recently were polled to determine if they were moderate versus liberal, skewed towards liberals. In January 2014 the Gallup organization released findings of self-identification in more than 13 polls taken in 2013 of 18,000 Americans. Their report confirmed this trend:

Americans continue to be more likely to identify as conservatives (38%) than as liberals (23%). But the conservative advantage is down to 15 percentage points as liberal identification edged up to its highest level since Gallup began regularly measuring ideology in the current format in 1992.

On the GOP side, the traditional country club business moderates that we were occasioned to see in prominence as party leaders over the period from the 1940’s through the Reagan, Bush I and II eras have been diminished by the rise of the Tea Party and libertarian grass roots movements.  That is reflected in the ironic confrontation in the November Henrico Virginia Congressional District race which is now between two professors at Randolph Macon University., Brat, a self styled tea Party libertarian, versus Democrat candidate, Jack Trammell, who styles himself as “liberal progressive”. Given the 7th CD voting preferences heavily skewed to conservative Brat might represent the district in the next Congress. As to why Cantor lost, look no further than the comments of David Wasserman of the Cooke Report quoted in this USA Today article on Cantor’s defeat:

Cantor’s leadership position, unwillingness to prolong last October’s government shutdown, far-fetched attacks on Brat, and stylistic clash with Virginia’s gun-owning, very conservative 7th (district) all played a role in the ‘perfect storm’ of base anger that engulfed him.

In a warning sign of Tea Party discontent in Cantor’s Richmond-based district, activists booed and heckled Cantor during a party convention in May. Cantor had invested nearly $1 million into the primary, running television ads and sending mailers attacking the underfunded and little known Brat.

Former Connecticut US Senator Joe Lieberman was upended in a highly partisan primary in August 2006 in the Nutmeg state.  As a Connecticut resident then, many of us were appalled to find that a minority of registered Democrat voters nominated Ned Lamont, scion of a wealthy Greenwich family; many were progressives, virulently anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. That energized involvement of a number of us in the Lieberman Independent campaign and resulting victory in November 2006.  A majority of those who elected him were Republicans and a distinct minority were union members, what pollsters called conservative lunch bucket Democrats.  That was an indication that the progressives had taken over local Democratic politics.  See my Israpundit post, August 10, 2006.

Unlike the Lieberman example, Cantor can’t run as a ‘sore loser’ Independent candidate in Virginia. And even if he could, he would lose because of the polarized Conservative electorate who didn’t appreciate his moderate views on immigration and other issues.  The defeat of Cantor may possibly lead in the next Congress to overturning current House Speaker John Boehner.  Polarization at the extremes of both parties has vaporized bi-partisan resolution of major public policy issues perhaps reflected in the low approval ratings of Congress. More ominously it may presage the emergence of an autocratic executive branch of our government relying on executive orders.   That could translate to a majority of Independents and moderates in the country being turned off, not voting and both Congressional and Presidential race outcomes determined by activist minorities.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review. The featured photo is courtesy of the Associated Press.

Police state? Impeach Obama activist targeted by Wisconsin police chief

What type of country are we becoming when freedom of expression becomes a target of those legally granted with governmental power? Such is the question I ponder having just finished a visit with the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) in Ann Arbor Michigan, reviewing some of their current cases. I found this one particularly interesting.

You may be aware of the “Impeach Obama” overpass movement — quite certain they may be getting lots more “honks” these days.

It seems that one Chief of Police, Timothy Keleman of Campbell, Wisconsin not only doesn’t appreciate this exercise of the First Amendment, he’s making it personal.

Enter Mr. Greg Luce, a devout Catholic and member of the Tea Party. He opposes President Obama on several issues, including the president’s stance on abortion. Luce was targeted for retaliation after he spoke out against a city ordinance which prohibits citizens from displaying the American flag, banners and wearing t-shirts that call for the impeachment of President Obama on a pedestrian highway overpass managed by the town.

Silly me, I thought overpasses were part of the public square and since the taxpayer funds the overpass — I am assuming in this case, their freedom to assemble and express themselves in petitioning their government for redress of grievances was their right.

Perhaps in the “fundamentally transformed” America of Barack Hussein Obama I may be wrong? And I just have to ask, if there were individuals gathered on the overpass burning the American flag — even without an open burn permit — would there be any such hoopla? Oh yeah, for many that’s acceptable freedom of expression – not for me of course.

Well, apparently ol’ Chief Keleman didn’t appreciate Mr. Luce, an American citizen, standing up for his rights. Chief Keleman decided to use Gregory Luce’s personal information, including his home address, telephone number and e-mail address to create profiles and accounts on numerous pornographic and dating websites featuring homosexual men, insurance companies, and the “Obamacare” website The accounts created by Kelemen resulted in Luce receiving approximately 15 phone calls in a single day regarding the profiles made using his information.

Additionally, Chief Kelemen, under the username “Bill O’Reilly,” posted a number of inflammatory and harassing comments on the website of local newspaper, the La Crosse Tribune, including 7 comments on the article regarding the filing of the initial lawsuit. Within the comments, Chief Kelemen posted that Luce had “disrespected the wrong mo fo,” as well as posting false comments about Mr. Luce wetting himself and posting Luce’s home address.

Seems that the wrong mo fo, Chief Keleman, graduated from the Barney Fife school of law enforcement. After initially denying any involvement in the harassment of Luce, the Chief ultimately admitted the harassment as an attempt to “get back at” Luce after detectives told him they had traced the unwanted solicitations to his IP addresses at the police department and his home. Detectives have referred their investigation to the Monroe County District Attorney for criminal prosecution under Wisconsin law.

Chief Keleman appears to be well-versed in Saul Alinsky’s tactic of personal destruction of the opposition, something perfected by current liberal progressive socialists who have carefully studied his Rules for Radicals.

Persecution by government officials via coercion and intimidation has no place in our Constitutional Republic. Hat tip to TMLC for taking up this case, and I certainly hope Chief Timothy Kelemen is sent away for a nice taxpayer-funded incarceration for violating the public trust and for dishonoring his oath to serve and protect the people.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on

National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee Video Contest Winners Announced

MERRIFIELD, Va., June 10, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — The National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee, a political action committee formed to draft Dr. Ben Carson into the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, today announced the three winners of its video contest to spread the word about why Dr. Carson should run for the 2016 Republican nomination. The winning videos were chosen based on the number of Facebook “likes” each received, and the video creators will receive their choice of a Silver iPad Air™ or a Microsoft Surface™.

“The American people want Dr. Carson to run for president, and the results of this video contest show definitively that they are clamoring for his leadership,” said Vernon Robinson, the Committee’s campaign director. “There is no other candidate who has what it takes to win the election and heal our nation. Ben Carsonis the best hope for America.”

Participants’ videos were uploaded to the Campaign’s Facebook page, where contestants gathered as many “likes” as they could by spreading the word to family, friends and other concerned citizens. All entries were submitted by midnight on Saturday, May 31.

Chris Adkins of Wayne, West Virginia came in first. Notified that his video won, Chris stated, “I don’t feel like I deserve an iPad, I was just speaking from the heart.”

Nicholas Zientarski of Grand Haven, Michigan placed second. Stephen Carson of San Diego, California, was a close third. He said, “It has been difficult to watch the decline of my country, and to see that someone is there who can stand for the values that make me proud to be an American is very meaningful to me. I have never stepped out for a campaign, but for this man I will do whatever I need to do.”

More than a quarter of a million people have signed petitions encouraging Dr. Carson to enter the race for the presidential nomination. The Committee delivers roughly 6,000 of these petitions to Dr. Carson each week.

Dr. Carson continues to prove he is a strong contender for the GOP nomination, consistently placing in the top three in poll after poll. Most recently, Ben Carson finished second in the Texas GOP State Convention’s straw poll, successfully defeating Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), considered a presidential frontrunner, and Gov. Rick Perry,Texas’ longest serving governor. Dr. Carson also took a close second to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at the National Republican Leadership Conference, missing the top spot by less than 1 percentage point.

Since its inception in August 2013, the committee has raised more than $6 million from more than 85,000 individual contributors. The average contribution amount was $45, with many donors contributing more than once.

About the National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee

The National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee is a political action committee formed to draft Dr. Ben Carson into the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. It was founded in August 2013 by John Philip Sousa IV and Vernon Robinson, and works to raise awareness of Dr. Carson’s qualifications and to engage grassroots conservative activists in clamoring for Dr. Carson to run for president. To learn more or follow them on Facebook and Twitter at @DraftRunBenRun.