Hillary’s Big Book Of Lies Coloring Book Creators Look To Spread Truth

Hillary's Big Book of Lies CoverNEW YORK, /PRNewswire/ — Even in this digital age, children love coloring books, but a group of patriots from New YorkNew Jersey, and Pennsylvania hope that adults will enjoy them as well. They are looking to a new coloring book to spread the word on what they consider the top 15 reasons that Hillary should not be elected President in 2016.

A non-partisan group of patriots are looking to publish a coloring book called HILLARY’S BIG BOOK OF LIES to help people understand what they consider the top 15 reasons that Hillary should not be elected President. The group has turned to Kickstarter to raise funds.

One of the authors, John Charles of New York, says “Research tells us that one of the best ways to educate people is to make learning fun, and that is why we banded together to create Hillary’s Big Book Of Lies: A coloring and activity book to help expose truth. Contrary to what people may assume, we, the creators of the book, are not all Republicans, but we have put aside our differences to create this book to help explain, in the simplest way possible, why Hillary must not become President in 2016. We’re not anti-woman, we’re not anti-Democrat. We’re pro-American and simply put, Hillary is bad for America.”

Another of the authors, Michael Drake of New Jersey, adds, “We’ve turned to Kickstarter to crowdfund this book for several reasons; Conservatives are seen as being out of touch with technology, we’d like to show that ‘Conservative’ does not mean just an angry old man out of touch with anything that happened after WW2. There are many young conservatives and even older conservatives who fully embrace technology. It’s not just a ‘liberal thing.’ A group making a Hillary action figure raised over $26,000.00, shouldn’t a group of patriots looking to expose her lies and deceptions be able to raise at least $11,000.00? I worked in hardware for over 45 years and now the neighborhood hardware store is almost a thing of the past. America is like a hardware store and I don’t want to see it fade away. A lifelong Democrat, I voted for President Clinton, but now I have to say ‘Enough!’ and expose the lies and dangers of electing Hillary before this country has to hang up an Out Of Business sign like so many small town hardware stores.”

In addition to being able to buy a book for themselves, the HillarysBigBookOfLies.com crowd funding program offers patrons an option to send a copy of the book to the White House, to the Senate, and to Congress. It is assumed the politicians will supply their own crayons. The crowdfunding campaign can be accessed at HillarysBigBookOfLies.com or at https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/980081361/hillarys-big-book-of-lies-coloring-book and the authors urge supporters to make their purchases ASAP because of the time limit for funding.

Republican Party Elites Abandon Traditional Marriage

Cliff Kincaid from Accuracy in Media reports:

Only six of 54 Republican members of the Senate signed a pro-traditional marriage legal brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that was submitted on Friday. USA Today noted, “By contrast, 44 Democratic senators and 167 Democratic House members filed a brief last month urging the court to approve same-sex marriage. The brief included the full House and Senate [Democratic] leadership teams.”

Read more.

A brief to the court filed by Liberty Counsel notes that, in the past, the Supreme Court has upheld marriage as “a foundational social institution that is necessarily defined as the union of one man and one woman.” It cites the case of Skinner v. Oklahoma, in which marriage was declared to be “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race,” and Maynard v. Hill, in which marriage was declared “the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Liberty Counsel said the court is being asked to affirm a false notion of marriage based upon fraudulent data about homosexual activity in society. It said, “For the past 67 years, scholars, lawyers and judges have undertaken fundamental societal transformation by embracing Alfred Kinsey’s statistically and scientifically fraudulent ‘data’ derived from serial child rapists, sex offenders, prisoners, prostitutes, pedophiles and pederasts. Now these same change agents, still covering up the fraudulent nature of the Kinsey ‘data,’ want this Court to utilize it to demolish the cornerstone of society, natural marriage.”

The homosexual movement has long maintained that Kinsey validated changes in sexual behavior that were already taking place in society. In fact, however, the evidence uncovered by Dr. Judith Reisman shows that Kinsey deliberately exaggerated those changes in a fraudulent manner by using data from pedophiles and prisoners.

Commenting on the impact of the acceptance of the fraudulent Kinsey data, Accuracy in Media founder Reed Irvine noted, “Gradually over the years, acceptance of the Kinsey morality has grown to the point where premarital and extramarital sex raise no eyebrows, where, in some communities, out-of-wedlock births are in the majority, homosexuality is glorified and aggressively promoted in our schools and the last taboo—adults having sex with young children—is now under attack in some of our institutions of higher learning.”

The Republican Conservative Steering Committee released the following statement:

Leaders of the 2012 Republican National Convention Committee on the Platform and the Republican Conservative Steering Committee filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court urging the Court to consider the societal benefits of traditional marriage as it considers whether to uphold Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, and Kentucky laws protecting such marriage.

The Brief argues that the states have an important interest in protecting and promoting traditional marriage and family as the foundation of a free society.

“The Republican Party has sought to protect and promote traditional marriage and family as the foundation of a free society, since the success of traditional families minimizes the need for government programs and intervention and because traditional families form a bulwark against the growth of government and its excesses. As a result, many states have protected and promoted traditional marriage in pursuit of this important government interest, often with bipartisan support, and their laws that do so are thereby constitutional,” explains attorney James Bopp, Jr., an amicus and lead counsel for all amici.

The friends-of-the-Court are members of the leadership of the 2012 Republican National Convention Committee on the Platform: Co-Chairman of the Committee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and Co-Chairmen of the Subcommittees with jurisdiction over marriage and family James Bopp, Jr. (Subcommittee on We the People: A Restoration of Constitutional Government) and Carolyn McLarty (Subcommittee on Renewing American Values to Build Healthy Families, Great Schools and Safe Neighborhoods).

In addition, the Republican Conservative Steering Committee, an independent organization comprising the majority of the current members of the Republican National Committee, is also an amicus. The Steering Committee voted to approve submission of the Brief.

The Brief explains that, since its inception, the Republican Party has been the champion of equality, individual freedom and limited government and, as a result, of the family.

“The Republican Party has always stood for equality, individual freedom, and limited government, and traditional marriage and family helps ensure that,” says attorney and amicus Bopp.

“The Party’s motivation for its pro-family policies has never been about ill will towards any American and, historically, has had nothing whatsoever to do with same-sex marriage. It is quite the opposite: every American deserves the opportunity at the very best chance of success in this country, without government dependency or intrusion, and traditional marriage helps accomplish that.” Mr. Bopp continues, “State governments have a compelling reason to protect traditional marriage and family as the foundation of a free society.”

Amicus Carolyn McLarty stated. “I am honored to be an amicus or “friend-of-the court” on this Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court.  This Brief has presented a fresh argument for keeping, promoting, and protecting traditional marriage as a necessity for a free society.”

Today the Republican Conservative Steering Committee launched a petition on their website so the grassroots supporters of traditional marriage can sign in support of the Amicus Brief.

The case is Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges, et al.

Carolyn McLarty, DVM is a retired veterinarian from Woodward, Oklahoma. She is currently the Republican National Committeewoman for Oklahoma and the Chairman of the Republican Conservative Steering Committee.

To see the Petition for Republican Voters to sign in support of the Brief see www.RepublicanCSC.com.  A copy of the Amicus Brief is available at this website.

If Republicans abandon traditional marriage then who will stand against the certain evils that will follow?

BANNED FILM: Hillary Clinton Exposed [full version]

hillary the movie posterTyler Bass from Forbidden Knowledge TV writes, “In the middle of the 2008 U.S. presidential primaries, the District Court for the District of Columbia blocked the nonprofit political advocacy group Citizens United from releasing a documentary targeting Hillary Clinton. The district court ruled that the conservative 501(c)(3)’s release, backed by unknown corporations, had run afoul of campaign finance law. Only after the entire election concluded would the Supreme Court vindicate Citizens United and thereby open the floodgates to a political reality where, many fear, corporate entities and unions carry undue influence.”

Today Democrats use the Supreme Court decision on Citizens United to rally their followers against any who support conservative groups. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, in an April 15th, 2015, email to party members states, “Hillary Clinton calls for anti-Citizens United Constitutional Amendment. Hillary Clinton just laid out her top priorities at her first campaign event — and called for an END of dark money in politics.”

The question is whose money?

Bob Heller notes:

Its hard not to laugh, but this is no laughing matter. Hillary Clinton says there is to much money in politics as it is reported she will raise over $2.2 billion in her campaign to become president. This is about 50% more than Obama raised who also said there is to much money in politics.

Ms. Clinton is also disturbed that some CO’s earn to much. But she has no compunction raising tens of millions of dollars from them. She says the disparity in income between the rich and middle class is terrible. She should know considering the enormous wealth she and Bill Clinton amassed using their exalted political offices.

It might seem strange to a lot of people that she doesn’t consider herself overpaid when she give a 45 minute speech and is paid between $200 and $350 thousand dollars plus thousands of dollars more in perks.

Read more.

Perhaps it is time to expose Hillary for what she really is the largest campaign fundraiser in post-modern American politics.

Watch the full version of the “Dark-Money” Anti-Hillary Film a Federal Court Silenced produced by Citizens United in 2008 – Hillary: The Movie

Prominent Jewish Republicans Host Fundraiser For U.S. Senator Ron Johnson

NEW YORKApril 14, 2015 /PRNewswire/ — Manhattan real-estate developer and hotelier Ian Reisner recently hosted a private fundraiser for Senator Ron Johnson (R – Wisconsin), Chairman of the U.S. Senate Homeland Security Committee. Holocaust survivor Sam Domb and former Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlmanwere among the leading Jewish Republicans and other conservatives who supported this effort.

Senator Johnson, who has begun campaigning for re-election in 2016, acknowledged the business leaders in the audience. He wondered, “Would any of you ask President Obama to negotiate on your behalf?” After the laughter subsided, Johnson listed his numerous concerns with Obama’s pending nuclear-weapons agreement with Iran’s dictatorship. Johnson also specified several amendments that he plans to introduce to assure that the U.S. Senate reviews and votes on this deal.

Those gathered at Reisner’s Central Park South penthouse included a bipartisan group of Jewish business leaders — both committed Republicans and several traditionally aligned with Democrats.

“As CEO of Major Automotive Companies, Inc.,” said Bruce Bendell, a longtime Democrat-leaning donor, “I respect Senator Johnson’s history as a business leader and now as someone who is dedicated to undoing the economic damage of the Obama years and restoring dynamic growth to our society.”

The participation of Bendell; American Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR) founding trustee Jonathan S. Canno; and entrepreneur Tzvi Odzer, among others, reflects growing Jewish support for Republicans. This parallels the widening rift between Jews and Democrats in light of Obama’s abundant disrespect for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the White House’s worrisome overtures to the ayatollahs.

“I saw up close the death and devastation of radical Islam at Ground Zero on the evening of September 11, 2001,” Ian Reisner recalled. “I don’t want to see New Yorkers once again incinerated by Islamic extremists from the Middle East.”

As the reception concluded, Kalman Sporn, Vice Chairman of the 2014 Republican Leadership Conference, presented Senator Johnson with a rare coin excavated at Masada, site of the Israelites’ brave stand against their Roman oppressors in the year 73 A.D. Sporn brought Reisner on his first trip to Israel in 2000, where they visited a military base and met Benjamin Netanyahu. Ian Reisner strongly has supported Jewish causes ever since, including Manhattan’s Museum of Jewish Heritage and the National Jewish Outreach Program.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R – Wisconsin) attends campaign fundraiser hosted by Manhattan real estate developer Ian Reisner (right). Source PRNewswire.

Emerson College Poll: California May Be In Play For 2016 Presidential Race

BOSTONApril 14, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A new poll conducted in California by the Emerson College Polling Society (ECPS) suggests that the perennially blue state, which has not been won by a Republican presidential candidate since 1988, may be in play for the 2016 election.

Hillary Clinton holds a commanding 46-point lead over Senator Elizabeth Warren, her nearest potential rival for the Democratic nomination. However, in head-to-head matchups with the top two GOP contenders, Jeb Bushand Scott Walker, Clinton’s 53% to 47% edge is within the poll’s margin of error of +/- 3.2%.

California Republicans are split on who their candidate will be. Among those who plan to vote in the GOP primary, Bush and Walker are tied at 17%, physician Ben Carson trails by two points at 15%, and TexasSenator Ted Cruz is at 11%. Nearly 1 in 5 are undecided.

Harris is Leading the U.S. Senate Race

The poll also looked at the U.S. Senate seat being vacated in 2016 by the retirement of Democratic incumbent Barbara BoxerCalifornia Attorney General Kamala Harris is leading a hypothetical field with 23% of the vote, followed by former eBay executive and 2010 gubernatorial loser Meg Whitman at 13%. Rocky Chavez, the only Republican to officially enter the race so far, came in third at 9%.

Water is the Top Issue

Water scarcity is the biggest issue facing California according to 31% of those polled, followed by immigration (21%) and jobs and the economy (13%). Seven in ten Californians (71%) support the mandatory water-use restrictions imposed by Governor Jerry Brown, including 48% who are strongly supportive. Only 18% oppose the cuts. Asked where they would make major reductions at home, 44% said they would reduce watering lawns and plantings, 15% cited showers and baths, and 9% would stop filling their swimming pools. 14% would make no reductions.

Worry is highest (41%) in the agriculturally important Central Valley region. A much larger percentage of Democrats (83%) favor water restrictions than Republicans (60%) and non-aligned voters (55%).

EDITORS NOTE: The ECPS survey was conducted statewide in California in English and Spanish from April 2-8, using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system. The survey sample consisted of 881 registered voters. The poll has a margin of error of +/-3.2% with a 95% confidence level. The full survey methodology and results can be found at www.theecps.com

Rubio enters GOP Presidential Primary as ‘tomorrow’s candidate’ — says Hillary is so ‘yesterday’

After making his 2016 presidential campaign official Monday morning, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) made a speech to supporters in Miami on April 13th, 2015, at 5:30 p.m. EST.

“The Republican Party, for the first time in a long time, has a chance in this election to be the party of the future,” Rubio told donors in a preview of his speech. “Just yesterday, we heard from a leader from yesterday who wants to take us back to yesterday, but I feel that this country has always been about tomorrow.”

“Yesterday is over,” stated Rubio.

Learn more about the Marco Rubio campaign at MarcoRubio.com.

Blacks Are Begging the Republican Party

In the immortal words of former British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, “to every man there comes a time when he is figuratively tapped on the shoulder and offered the chance to do a great and mighty work; unique to him and fitted to his talents; what a tragedy if that moment finds him unprepared or unqualified for the moment that could be his finest hour.”

The Republican Party is currently being tapped on the shoulder and being asked to do “a great and mighty work, unique to them and fitted to their talents.”

They are being tapped on the shoulder by the Black community who are begging the Republican Party to give them a reason to vote Republican in next year’s presidential election.

The Black community gave Obama 94% of its vote in 2008, not just because he was Black; but because he said he was “change we could believe in.”

Obama said he would get the U.S. out of all these “unnecessary” wars; indirectly giving Blacks the impression that he would then redirect the money spent on war to dealing with the high Black unemployment rate, the lack of access to capital for Black entrepreneurs, shoring up the failing schools within the Black community, both secondary and college.

Six and a half years after Obama was “tapped on the shoulder;” he has indeed been found “unqualified and unprepared for the moment that could have been his (and America’s) finest hour.”

By any and all objective measurements, the Obama presidency has been an abject failure for Blacks: double digit unemployment, declining home ownership, shrinking net worth, decreasing college enrollment, especially at Black colleges, and non-existent government contracting opportunities for Black businesses just to name a few.

Republicans still have time to show the Black community that the party is prepared for this moment that could be its finest hour, but time is running out.

They need to start with something very simple: tell the Black community in no uncertain terms, that they are wanted and welcomed in the Republican Party.

Then the Congressional leadership must convene a series of private meetings with “the right” Blacks in education, business, the clergy. This is not to be confused with them meeting with Blacks that they are “comfortable” with.

Republicans have a history of favoring Blacks who will tell them what they want to hear, versus Blacks who will tell them what they need to hear.

Obama has done more to destroy Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) than any other person in this country’s history with the policies coming out of his Department of Education. What are Congressional Republicans prepared to do by way of hearings and legislation to repair this damage?

Government contracting opportunities for Black entrepreneurs has all but dried up under Obama. Banks refuse to loan money to many small business owners. What are Republicans prepared to do by way of hearings and legislation to change this?

The Black church is furious with Obama over his aggressive push for homosexual entitlements and his refusal to protect their commitment to faith if they receive government funds for after school activities for their church member’s kids. What are Republicans prepared to do by way of hearings and legislation to protect a church’s right to freely practice their faith without government interference?

Obama has intentionally done everything in his power to drive a wedge between Blacks and his administration. There is no poll that can accurately measure the disappointment and frustration Blacks have with Obama.

They are literally begging the Republican Party to give them substantive reasons to vote for them. But they first must be made to feel welcomed in the party.

The party must build relationships with the more than 200 Black newspapers in the country and spend advertising dollars with them. The party must stop being afraid to challenge the NAACP and the National Urban League when they are advocating liberal policies that will continue to adversely affect the Black community.

They must establish a surrogate program of “credible Black Republicans” that can represent the party on various radio and TV shows. The party has shown an extreme amount of incompetence and a total lack of understanding when it comes to branding the party within the Black community.

During presidential elections, Republicans average about nine percent of the Black vote. That’s with doing nothing. Just imagine what can happen with a little effort. Realistically it is very doable to get between 15-20% of the Black vote next year; but only if the party starts now with constructive engagement with the Black community, Black media, and Black organizations.

What a tragedy if this moment also finds the Republican Party “unprepared or unqualified for the moment that could be its finest hour.”

Marco Rubio: A New American Century [VIDEO]

Foreign policy is taking center stage in both the Republican and Democratic primaries. Marco Rubio is announcing his run for the Republican presidential nomination. His theme is “A New American Century”.

Ken McIntyre in his column Marco Rubio Runs for President on America’s Place in the World writes:

To the extent primary voters question the wisdom of putting forward another first-term U.S. senator for president, Rubio fans counter not only with his rise to the speakership of the Florida legislature but his engagement with key foreign policy questions in the Senate.

Last May, delivering the Republican address that counters President Obama’s weekly message on radio and online, Rubio boiled down his post-9/11 thinking on the subject:

Today, foreign policy is an important part of our domestic policy. And our economic well-being is deeply dependent on our national security. The problem is that President Obama doesn’t seem to understand this. Instead of shaping world events, he has often simply reacted to them. And instead of a foreign policy based on strategy, his foreign policy is based on politics.

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State demands $30 million for Christian hostages

Visit to a Mariupol Hospital Shows Ukraine War’s Toll

The Problem With International Outreach to Iran

Why Presidential Announcements Matter

15 Facts About Hillary Clinton

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of The Daily Signal.

Why Natural Born Citizen is Non-Negotiable

Not so long ago, Americans placed little faith and trust in ambulance chasers (a.k.a. lawyers) or politicians, and wisely so according to our Founders who had no faith or trust in any person seeking power and dominion over others. Now, too many Americans place all of their faith in people seeking power and dominion over others, and even worse, a class of people who have already proven most dangerous to the Constitutional Republic and Rule of Law… the lawyer law-makers…

Ever since Barack Obama stole the show at the Kerry Convention in 2004 and rocketed from total obscurity to the most powerful political office in our land four years later, the subject of Article II requirements for the Oval Office has been a subject of great debate, all over three simple words, natural born Citizen (NBC), aka “True Citizen.”

Where did it come from, what does it mean, why did our Founders limit access to only two political offices in our nation to no one other than a natural born Citizen, and what do we do now that we know Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States? These questions have been the source of much political debate, confusion and anxiety, now threatening the GOP as a result of numerous potential 2016 GOP candidates also failing to meet the requirement.

Some of the most blatantly insane arguments have been floated…

“Well, the constitution does not provide a definition for the term”… which is of course true, since the U.S. Constitution provides no definition for any word found in the document.

“Our naturalization laws define natural born Citizen” (when in fact our naturalization laws only pertain to naturalized citizens, immigrants seeking basic citizen rights from congress).

“The courts will have to tell us what the term means”… despite knowing that it is the courts that created terms of art like “undocumented citizen” (a.k.a. illegal alien) and “Constitutional Rights for non-citizens and even enemy combatants” (while denying American citizen any constitutional protection of natural rights at all) and “social justice” (the opposite of real justice under Constitutional Law).

Others rely upon “legal scholars” also known as lawyers of the political class in line for political appointments and eager to please those in positions to help them ascend to those lofty positions in the judiciary, ignoring the reality that these scholars have powerful political motivations for the opinions they write, and that no opinion has the power to amend the U.S. Constitution except by amendment process.

The simple truth is that Article II of the U.S. Constitution has only been amended once in U.S. history, by Amendment XII extending the requirements for President to the Vice President as well. It has not been otherwise amended, despite at least eight failed attempts by Congress to eliminate the natural born requirement for high office. Further, no amendment has ever mentioned, changed or in any way altered the original meaning of natural born Citizen as intended by our Founders and ratified by all fifty states.

So, the term natural born Citizen means the same today as it did in 1787 when the Founders placed that requirement in Article II… unless you buy into the notion that naturalization statutes or amendments, or scholarly legal arguments carry with them the legal force to amend the constitution – in which case, the term has no meaning at all, and neither does anything else in our Founding documents.

Before Barack Obama arrived on the scene, the nobody from nowhere with a blank résumé and no verifiable past, not too many Americans ever thought about the term. Most Americans assumed that no one would ever be bold enough to attempt such a massive fraud by falsely claiming natural born eligibility, and they assumed that if anyone ever did make such an attempt, our strict election laws, free press and national security agency oversight would surely catch it, expose it and stop it from happening. These assumptions have proven to be wrong… in fact, such attempts are now becoming common place. Barack was the first, but now there are others…

Most Americans have entered the discussion from a purely political purpose, attempting to either qualify their political messiah of choice, or disqualify another. But the natural born Citizen concept is actually far more important to our society than merely who can and cannot hold the office of Commander-in-Chief.

I was recently asked a question I have been asked literally thousands of times since I started writing on the subject, how do I know for sure what the Founders meant by natural born Citizen?

How do we know what any word or phrase means? Most people reach to their book shelf and grab a dictionary when they want to know the true definition of a word of phrase. Most people have never come upon a word or phrase that they needed a lawyer, or a court, or anything more than a dictionary to properly interpret… I find this to be the case here as well.

People don’t have any trouble understanding the word “born” (the moment of birth) or the word “citizen” (a legal member of a society). The word people seem to struggle with is “natural.”

At this moment, a collective effort is underway to claim that the following three words are synonymous… natural – native – naturalized…. Which would make anyone eligible for the Oval Office, including the courts new citizen class the “undocumented citizen.”

People trying to disqualify John McCain in 2008 decided that natural and native are synonymous terms and people now trying to qualify Obama, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are claiming that natural, native and naturalized are all synonymous terms of art. Before they can eliminate the NBC requirement from Article II, they must first make the term ambiguous, potentially having more than one meaning… of course…

Any dictionary will disagree with these claims…

Naturalized – “to admit (a foreigner) to the citizenship of a country.”

Native – “being the place or environment in which a person was born.”

Natural – “existing in or formed by nature.”

Clearly, these three words have three very different definitions and meanings, only one of which is related to the Constitutional requirement for the Oval Office… “Natural.”

As a simple dictionary review confirms, these three words are in no way synonymous. It is not possible for the following three terms to be synonymous, natural born, native born and naturalized. Yet, many will continue to make the false claim that they are… because they believe these claims to suit their political agenda of the moment.

Many know exactly what natural born Citizen means, and still, for political expediency, they refuse to stand on this truth. Just this morning another “political commentator” wrote me this…

“NATIVE BORN CITIZENS ARE DIFFERENT… .. I see the reference to the father’s citizenship alone as determinING the birthright of the child… BUT YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO THAT AINT GONNA FLY today NO MORE THAN DENYING WOMEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE. YOU WILL ALIENATE HALF THE COUNTRY WITH SUCH NONSENSE” – Scott Rohter (exactly as sent to me, yelling caps and all)

As you can see, Mr. Rohter first confirms that he is aware of the truth, before shifting to all CAPS to scream his refusal to stick to the truth, referring to that truth as “nonsense” because that truth will offend some who do not like this truth. It is this practice which has made the NBC term appear “ambiguous,” opening the door for the lawyer law-making political class to enter the discussion with new invented definitions of the term.

As Mr. Rohter confirmed in our exchange, we agree on 99% of the issues… unfortunately, the 1% we disagree on is the most important – of critical importance, especially at this moment in history, when every American must deal only in truth. Mr. Rohter is not alone in his position. Numerous others have made the same false claims for exactly the same reasons.

The Harvard Lawyers are intentionally lying to the people when claiming NBC is synonymous with naturalized citizen at birth. But people like Rohter are also intentionally lying to the people for their set of political reasons. Both are responsible for allowing unconstitutional candidates to seek and hold the most powerful office in our land, that of Commander-in-Chief.

The term natural born Citizen is based on historical concepts as old as all recorded time. If you want to know where and why the Founders borrowed the term for Article II, I cover that in this piece… and if you want to know the true historical definition of the term, I cover that in this piece.

Natural born Citizen is a term based in biblical teachings based upon the concepts of a patriarchal society wherein in the Father is the head of the family unit. The intentional destruction of the family unit has greatly complicated the discussion with scholarly changes in the definition of words like marriage, family and shifting gender roles forced by liberal restructuring of American society, also for political purposes.

14th Naturalization Amendment terms like “citizen at birth” and “birthright citizenship” have been intentionally been tossed into the mix to further complicate the understanding of three basic English words defined in every English dictionary. The purpose of all these efforts is to eliminate the NBC requirement for office by simply redefining the term. But that is not the only purpose…

Setting politics aside for a moment, natural born Citizenship is the inalienable natural right of every child to inherit the country of their natural birth father upon birth, not only due to no application of man-made statute or legal opinions, but inalienable by these means.

When people begin to play with definitions, it is an overt effort to alter our Founding principles and values and Constitutional protections of all inalienable Natural Rights as guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is a much larger issue than who can or cannot occupy the Oval Office, although this is indeed an issue paramount to the sovereignty and security of these United States.

Contrary to the intentional mis-education of American society, we do not enjoy “constitutional rights.” We have long enjoyed “constitutionally protected Natural Rights.”

Beginning in 2008, when folks were trying to disqualify John McCain, born the son of American parentage stationed abroad in Panama on the service of our country with the U.S. Navy, some plucked a single sentence from the proper source of the Founders NBC term, The Law of Nations by Vattel, as if they believe that it was unnecessary for Vattel to take great care to write an entire chapter on the subject, when a single sentence says it all.

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

As already demonstrated above, natives and naturals are in fact two different things, which confirms that the structure of this single sentence is not the definition of any one thing, but rather a general statement about more than one thing… Reference to “parents” does not mean both parents within the family unit, but rather all citizen family units which bear “citizen” children.

Why did these individuals not pluck any of the following single sentences from Vattel, appearing in the same paragraph Section 212 of Chapter XIX of the Law of Nations?

“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

Or this one – “as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.”

Or this one – “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”

Or even this one – “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

When trying to sum up natural born Citizen using a single sentence from Vattel, any of the four sentences above would be accurate. So, why didn’t the people who cherry-picked the unrelated general sentence pluck any of these other single sentences from the same paragraph?

There are two reasons… first, the truth did not suit the political agenda, which was to disqualify John McCain on the basis that although he was born to a citizen father (and mother), he was born in Panama, not on U.S. soil – and second, because the progressive shifting definitions of marriage and family, along with gender roles lead many to believe that the original definition and Founders intent of the term are antiquated and outdated. It leads many to falsely think it is some offense to women’s rights…

The Citizenship Act of 1934 pertaining only to “naturalized citizenship” is the cornerstone of today’s effort to destroy the NBC term and thereby eliminate the requirement from Article II. FDR’s Naturalization Act was the result of an international treaty from a Pan American conference of December 26, 1933, essentially agreeing that there should be no distinction between the sexes as it related to nationality under legislative processes. Of course, this pertained only to “naturalized citizenship” under congressional naturalization legislation.

Still, it has since been improperly used to claim that citizenship and even natural born Citizenship can pass from either Father or Mother, as a matter of alleged gender equality. Yet, this claim pertains only to naturalized citizenship, which is mutually exclusive of natural born Citizenship.

As all governmental power in the United States is limited in nature and derived from the people, nothing beyond what which was ratified by the people in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is under the consent of the people. The people have not consented to any alterations of Article II requirements for high office, so no alterations have been legally made.

Why natural born Citizen is non-negotiable

Much more than a political ambition or agenda is at stake here… The Natural Right of every child to inherit the condition of their birth family, specifically that of the Father (patriarch), the head of the family, is a constitutionally protected Natural Right.

Americans must understand that everything our Founders created was based upon inalienable Natural Rights, not man-made laws via legislative process or judicial review. When anyone begins to mess around with natural born, they are in fact messing around the Natural Law and all Natural Rights, the cornerstone of our Founders creation and any form of freedom and liberty.

If a child born to an American Father is stripped of their Natural Right to inherit the country of their Father, what other Natural Rights can be stripped from the child or the parent by mere man-made statute, court interpretation or Harvard Law Review? The answer is all of them…

In my personal opinion, the three most important words in all of the U.S. Constitution are natural born Citizen… because all Natural Rights flow through this patriarchal social concept and the sovereignty and security of our Constitutional Republic are protected from foreign invasion at the highest level by these three simple words, natural born Citizen.

Once any citizen of any type, by any means, including “undocumented citizens” can occupy the Oval Office, then any foreign entity can occupy that office, controlling the future of this nation and form of freedom and liberty itself as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force on earth.

Mere momentary political interest is not enough reason to let everything die…

I pray that Americans will cease to be so blind and foolish…. quickly!

RELATED ARTICLE: Media Repression on the Question of What is a “natural born Citizen?”

Which Race, Gender, Generation, Education groups support Democrats or Republicans?

A new analysis of long-term trends in party affiliation among the public provides a detailed portrait of where the parties stand among various groups in the population. It draws on more than 25,000 interviews conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2014, which allows examination of partisan affiliation across even relatively small racial, ethnic, educational and income subgroups. ( Explore detailed tables for 2014 here.)

The share of independents in the public, which long ago surpassed the percentages of either Democrats or Republicans, continues to increase. Based on 2014 data, 39% identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans. This is the highest percentage of independents in more than 75 years of public opinion polling. (For a timeline of party affiliation among the public since 1939, see this interactive feature.)

When the partisan leanings of independents are taken into account, 48% either identify as Democrats or lean Democratic; 39% identify as Republicans or lean Republican. The gap in leaned party affiliation has held fairly steady since 2009, when Democrats held a 13-point advantage (50% to 37%).

Read more.

party affiliation by group pew

RELATED ARTICLES:

Book Review: Mike Lee on the 6 ‘Lost’ Provisions of the Constitution

Rand Paul to Media: Ask Democrats If It’s ‘OK to Kill 7-Pound Baby’

This State Is Taking the Lead on Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform

How Our High Corporate Tax Rate Hurts Our Economy

Many Americans Will Be in the 1% (For One Year)

Rand Paul Launches 2016 Campaign: “A Different Kind of Republican Leader”

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has launched his campaign for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination. Rand Paul follows in the shadow of his father Ron. Will he change from the losing strategy of his father and take a new and “different” approach? Time will tell.

Here is the video titled “A Different Kind of Republican Leader” he has posted on YouTube:

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘I Am Who I Am’: 3 Questions for Rand Paul

These 36 Photos of Rand Paul Prove He’s Not Your Average GOP Contender

Rand Paul Begins a Campaign for President With ‘Guts’ and ‘Gray Cells’

Will the May 7th UK Election Result in a Rollback of Islamization?

On May 7th the Conservatives in the UK led by Prime Minister David Cameron, currently in a coalition with Deputy PM  Nick Clegg of the  Liberal Democrats, will face  Labor led by Ed  Miliband and a surge by  the UK Independent Party UKIP  led by Nigel Farage in the election of a new Westminster Parliament.  Farage has been a long term Member of the European Parliament seeking to take the UK out of the EU.  A decade ago, this writer was on a weekly  Radio  America program, originating out of Washington, DC, where Farageheld forth on his vision for the UK. Given recent polling in the UK, Farage may be poised to siphon off upwards of 2 million voters from the Conservatives, perhaps making the UKIP a plausible junior coalition partner in an emerging UK government following the May 7th elections.

Like Geert Wilders leader of the Dutch Freedom Party in the Hague Parliament and Paul Weston of the Liberty GB party in the UK, Farage has made significant inroads in normally Conservative voters over the issue of Mass Muslim immigration, and tolerant policies by the current Cameron government regarding Sharia law recognition and counterterrorism policies towards home grown Muslim rejectionists of British values and laws. Some of whom have committed horrendous terrorist attacks and slaughter on the streets of Great Britain killing dozens and injuring hundreds. Then there are reports of Muslim gangs controlling prisons or in British communities engaging in gang rapes and sex grooming of young girls, and illegal female genital mutilation within their own communities.  Add to that emergence of informal Sharia monitors in predominately Muslim areas in the UK like Tower Hamlets in London.

Hundreds of Muslim young men and women in the UK have left to join ISIS, some like “Jihad John” have prominently involved in ISIS videos beheading UK and American captives. Problems that Britain and the EU face in these matters are graphically depicted in Erick Stakelbeck’s new, ISIS Exposed: Beheadings, Slavery, And The Hellish Reality of Radical Islam that we reviewed in the April edition of the New English Review, The Caliphate TriumphantHe likened what the UK has become to a dystopian Muslim version of Anthony Burgess’ 1962 book and 1971 film, A Clockwork Orange, depicting Britain ruled by gangs of rampaging young criminal gangs subjected by authorities to “aversion therapy”. His interview with Salafist and ISIS supporter Anjem Choudary of ‎Al-Muhajiroun  illustrated the barbarians already being monitored inside the gates in the UK.

UK Home Secretary Thersa May announcing Extremism Dispruption Orders September 2014

UK Home Secretary Theresa May announcing Extremism Disruption Orders, September 2014.

Soeren Kern in this Gatestone Institute, “British Home Secretary to Islamic Extremists: “The Game is Up” published today discusses Conservative Home Secretary’s platform proposals directed at curtailing Islamization in the UK. Meanwhile let us not forget that PM Cameron championing the City of London becoming the world center for Sharia Finance at an address before the World Islamic Economic Forum in London in 2013.

May’s plan for redressing untoward Islamization in the UK is outlined by Kern:

The plan is part of the Tory election manifesto, a declaration of policies and programs to be implemented if Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative Party stays in power after the general election on May 7.

The home secretary has pledged that a future Tory government would — among other measures— ban Islamic hate preachers, shut down extremist mosques and review whether Sharia courts in England and Wales are compatible with British values.

May has also promised to crack down on Islamic extremism in British prisons, to monitor how police are responding to so-called honor crimes, female genital mutilation and forced marriage, and to change the citizenship law to ensure that successful applicants respect British values.

May in a March 23rd speech laid out the basis for the Conservative ‘manifesto:’

“There is increasing evidence that a small but significant number of people living in Britain — almost all of whom are British citizens — reject our values. We have seen the Trojan Horse plot to take over state schools in Birmingham. Some concerns about religious supplementary schools. Widespread allegations of corruption, cronyism, extremism, homophobia and anti-Semitism in Tower Hamlets. Hate speakers invited to speak at British colleges and universities. Segregation by gender allowed at universities and even endorsed by Universities UK [a lobbying group representing British universities]. Charities and the generosity of the giving public abused by extremists. Examples of Sharia law being used to discriminate against women. Thousands of ‘honor’ crimes committed every year. And hundreds of British citizens who have travelled to fight in Syria and Iraq.

“It’s clear from these examples that extremism can take many forms. It can be ideological, or it can be driven by social and cultural norms that are contrary to British values and quite simply unacceptable. We have been clear all along that the Government’s counter-extremism strategy must seek to defeat extremism in all its forms, but it’s obvious from the evidence that the most serious and widespread form of extremism we need to confront is Islamist extremism.

“Islamist extremists believe in a clash of civilizations. They promote a fundamental incompatibility between Islamic and Western values, an inevitable divide between ‘them and us.’ They demand a caliphate, or a new Islamic state, governed by a harsh interpretation of Sharia law. They utterly reject British and Western values, including democracy, the rule of law, and equality between citizens, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, religion or sexuality. They believe that it’s impossible to be a good Muslim and a good British citizen. And they dismiss anybody who disagrees with them — including other Muslims — as ‘kafirs,’ or non-believers.

“Extremism is not something that can just be ignored. It cannot be wished away. It must be tackled head on. Because where extremism takes root the consequences are clear. Women’s rights are eroded. There is discrimination on the basis of race and sexuality. There is no longer equal access to the labor market, to the law, or to wider society. Communities become segregated and cut off from one another. Intolerance, hatred and bigotry become normalized. Trust is replaced by fear, reciprocity by envy, and solidarity by division.

“But tackling extremism is also important because of its link to terrorism. Not all extremism leads to violence and not all extremists are violent, but there is without doubt a thread that binds the kind of extremism that promotes hatred and a sense of superiority over others to the actions of those who want to impose their beliefs on us through violence.

“I know there are some people who disagree with me. They say what I describe as Islamist extremism is simply social conservatism. But if anybody else discriminated against women, denounced people on the basis of their religious beliefs, rejected the democratic process, attacked people on the basis of their sexuality, or gave a nod and a wink in favor of violence and terrorism, we wouldn’t hesitate to challenge them or — if the law was broken — call for their prosecution and punishment.

May ended her speech with a warning to Islamic extremists: “The game is up. We will no longer tolerate your behavior. We will expose your hateful beliefs for what they are. Where you seek to spread hate, we will disrupt you. Where you break the law, we will prosecute you. Where you seek to divide us, we will stand united. And together, we will defeat you.”

May’s Manifesto has unnerved Universities and Justice Ministers over free speech matters and control of imprisoned radical Imams.   Harass Rafik of the Quillam Foundationcommented:

“For the lifetime of this coalition government we have had no published strategy on tackling the ideas and ideology behind non-violent extremism. We are still having the same conversations. We are still talking about Sharia law, still talking about learning more, still talking about tackling non-violent extremism, why aren’t we doing it?”

Banning non-violent extremists in a liberal secular democracy does not work. We can say over the last 10 years the policy does not work. Take the policy of Anjem Choudary and Al-Muhajiroun. Once they were banned initially, they just kept popping up under different names.”

There were the usual Muslim advocates decrying May’s plan as “Islamophobia:”

 The chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, Massoud Shadjareh, said: “Nobody will be fooled by the Home Secretary’s claims that these measures are designed to tackle extremism. They are a shameless expression of a hate and bigotry that is increasingly becoming normalized in Britain.” Manzoor Moghal, the chairman of the Muslim Forum, a think tank, told the BBC that May’s proposals would infringe on freedom of speech. “We might be sleep walking into what would be like a police state,” he said. Moghal also said that Sharia courts “do not contradict British laws” and were “subservient to British laws all the time.”

However, as Kern noted in his conclusion, my radio panel colleague of a decade ago, Nigel Farage’s UKIP now is ranked the third party in the UK because of its strong stand against Islamization that appeals to British voters. Kern notes that it “twice as popular as the Liberal Democrats” in the current Cameron government coalition. A tight race coming up on May 7th that might mark a roll back of Islamization in the UK, before it becomes a dystopian Muslim version of Burgess’ A Clock Work Orange.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

GOP Candidate for Missouri Governor is a Ex-Navy SEAL, Rhodes Scholar and Jewish

Eric Greitens threw  his hat in the ring  this week announcing his run for the GOP  nomination in the 2016 Governor race in Missouri reported  the JTA/Forward Jewish Ex Navy Seal Decides to Run For Missouri Governor. This  follows the apparent suicide of a leading candidate, Tom Schweich, State Auditor. Greitens  is as Rhodes Scholar, National Humanitarian award winner and author of the New York Times best-selling book, The Heart and the Fist: The Education of a Humanitarian, the Making of a Navy SEAL.

A  Jewish Telegraph Agency profile of Greitens noted his  background and accomplishments:

Greitens, 40, is a former Navy SEAL, the recipient of seven military awards (including a bronze star and a purple heart), a former Rhodes Scholar and the founder of The Mission Continues, a nonprofit that helps veterans integrate themselves back into their communities through volunteer work. He served in Iraq from 2003 to 2007. His fourth book, “Resilience: Hard-Won Wisdom for Living a Better Life,” published earlier this month, is a collection of inspirational letters to a fellow Navy SEAL struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Greitens  is a unusual American Jew. Ex-Navy Seal, Rhodes Scholar, Reform Congregation Member, well published author now running for the GOP nomination for Governor in Missouri. A Missouri torn by sectarian warfare over alleged racism in Ferguson and St. Louis County. Let’s hope that he wins the GOP primary for Governor in Missouri. His announced candidacy follows in the wake of the controversy surrounding the  apparent suicide in Mid-February  of respected  Republican State Auditor, Tom Schweich.  Just before suicide, Missouri politician fretted about rumors he was Jewish, amidst  a  whispering anti-Semitic campaign aimed at knocking him out of contention. Tom Schweich, had Jewish origins- his grandfather. Schweich was an Episcopalian.

The Forward reported:

Tom Schweich committed suicide right before he was supposed to file a complaint against another political figure, John Hancock, for spreading that he was Jewish in attempts to hurt his candidacy.

Just two days before the suicide, ex-navy seal Eric Greitens launched an exploratory committee to raise funds for the governor race. He has already obtained $400,000 for the GOP primary,

Although it is expected that he will run, Greitens has refused to give the public any details about his stance. He has declined requests on why he is running, what issues he wishes to tackle and the issues Missouri residents are concerned about.

These pressing topics include abortion rights, the state’s financial crisis and of course the Black Lives Matter movement that has been taking place in Ferguson, Missouri due to a young black man being shot by a police officer.

“Unfortunately Eric isn’t doing political interviews at this time,” said Greitens’ press officer, Adam Miller, when pressed on this. Miller indicated that the Navy SEAL, who has not yet officially declared his candidacy, was more focused right now on his promoting his book.

In his interview, Greitens was willing to go on the record with a clear statement about his religion. “I’m proud to be Jewish,” he told the Forward.

As to the controversy surrounding the  allegations of  a rumored anti-Semitic campaign against Schweich, the Forward noted:

Hancock, the chairman of the Missouri State Republican Committee, has admitted that he was one of those who had stated that Schweich was Jewish, but that it wasn’t supposed to be malicious

Though, former Republican U.S. Senator John Danforth, a dean of Missouri state politics, refuted that statement. Richard Fox, a Jewish donor to the Republican party in Missouri, has insisted that Hancock resign for his comments.

But Greitens declined to say whether Hancock should give up his position as chairman of the Missouri GOP. “Before I would make that determination I would want to talk with John Hancock and I would want to know more about what these accusations are,” he said.

As for allegations of anti-Semitism, Hancock said it was as simple as saying “I’m a Presbyterian and somebody else is Catholic,” but that it was intended to hurt anyone.

At least one Republican donor did not interpret it innocuously. In a sworn affidavit, David Humphreys said he understood Hancock to mean “that being Jewish is a negative attribute for Tom Schweich’s gubernatorial race.”

However, a detective involved in the police investigation of the suicide told the Associated Press that “we have not been able to prove that there was a whispering campaign.”

Greitens responded:

“It certainly could be that there are prejudices around,” said Greitens, the honest-to-goodness Jewish GOP gubernatorial candidate. “I can only speak to what I have lived, and I have experienced that people have been incredibly welcoming to me as a Jewish Republican.”

“There is no room for anti-Semitism in the Republican Party,” Greitens insisted, “and the leaders need to show that.”

We know from the deadly April 2014  attack , in adjacent Overland Park, Kansas  that Missouri harbors some anti-Semitic extremists. 

See our Iconoclast post, UPDATED: Blind Hate Cuts Down Three Lives at Kansas City Jewish Complex. The Kansas City metro area is also home to some anti-Semitic Muslims as well. Witness MD ‘rabbi’ Alam , a Bangladeshi Muslim émigré, who served in the U.S. Army to gain his citizenship, an anti- Semitic 9/11 ‘truther ‘who ran for the Secretary of State in Missouri in 2012 saying, “Not a Single Jew killed on 9/11”.

Our colleague Dr. Richard L. Rubenstein, noted theologian and widely published author, commented about the difference between Schweich and Greitens:

It’s a pity and a waste that Schweich took his own life, but I would guess that he saw his conversion to Christianity as a way of escape. When the escape failed, he took his own life, I can’t blame Senator Danforth, but I would guess that Danforth had only a limited understanding of the psychological and cultural elements involved in religious identity. If Schweich had simply declared, “Yes, I have Jewish roots. That’s who I am. He might have retained his dignity and self-respect even if he lost the race  but he would have saved his life and his dignity. Win or lose, the former Navy Seal will never lose either his dignity or his self respect.

Greitens has something else in his stead for Missouri voters. He served his country with honor and distinction in combat. That  was grounded in his Jewish faith, the bedrock of American Judeo-Christian values.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of Eric Greitens: “What’s beautiful about the military is that it’s probably the most well integrated institution on the planet.” ( Photo: Chloe Crespi)

VoteTocracy Chrome Extension Makes Congress Just a Click Away

VoteTocracy LogoNEW YORK, April 1, 2015 /PRNewswire/ — VoteTocracy, the online citizen voting site for bills in Congress, announced the launch of its new Google Chrome extension. The VoteTocracy extension allows users to view decision makers and bills discussed in news articles and immediately and directly contact government representative without leaving the article.

Once the Chrome extension is installed, users are automatically prompted to place their cursor over the name or bill in an article, enabling a small engagement box to appear. For example, if an article had the names Ted CruzRand PaulJohn BoehnerHarry ReidElizabeth Warren or any other Congressmen, those names would be highlighted. From there, users can directly email members of the legislature directly or vote Yes or No on the bill itself. The VoteTocracy extension allows citizens’ voices to be heard, while having a positive, timely impact on legislation.

votocracyRecently with the continued migration from offline print to online media, there has been an increase in political interest among Americans. Everyone has an opinion regarding our nation’s problems, however, speaking out on social media sites and utilizing hashtags is not an effective form of advocacy. In fact, “hashtag activism” has no long term impact on serious political and social issues.

Ironically, even as people become more polarized or vocal online about political issues, political participation has been lackluster. Some statistics about voter turnout:

  • Only 58% of eligible voters voted in the 2012 presidential election.
  • The midterm elections in 2014 garnered the lowest voter turnout since World War II at 36.4%.
  • Voter turnout has been consistently falling since the 1964 elections.

A 2008 report by the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) found that 200 million messages are sent to Congress every year. Election turnout may be dismal, but the report finding proves that it is not because the public doesn’t care. Until VoteTocracy there has not been a way to measure influence and outcomes. VoteTocracy closes that the loop by holding elected officials accountable; their dashboard measures the effectiveness of Representatives or Senators against an individual’s preferences. This focus on outcomes is what differentiates VoteTocracy. Scoreboards keep track and aggregate sessions to one simplified visual: https://www.votetocracy.com/congressmen/114/scoreboard

“People are frustrated with Congress yet at the same time feel powerless. Approval ratings for Congress are at an all-time low,” says VoteTocracy CEO David Kraljic. “VoteTocracy can provide Americans the opportunity to truly impact our elected officials whose decisions affect our lives.”

“People are most activated about an issue or an action taken by a Senator or Representative when they are consuming media,” continues Kraljic. “They might read an article about a new piece of legislation and be angered or supportive of it. It is at that moment that they need to take action, and the VoteTocracy Chrome extension allows them to do just that.”

For a demo of how the VoteTocracy Chrome extension works, visit https://www.votetocracy.com/browser-extension/

VoteTocracy will also be releasing a Safari and Firefox version of the extension in the near future. The extension is available for download at https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/votetocracy/noibadhiddocgldphdjlfgeolemofgmp

About VoteTocracy

VoteTocracy is citizen powered Congress. Citizens and organizations vote on real bills and they tally the results against Congressional outcomes. Founded in 2009, VoteTocracy exists to level Main Street and K Street. For more information, visit www.votetocracy.com

Terrifying the Republican Establishment: Ted Cruz announces candidacy

Would you vote for a man who openly says he would repeal ObamaCare?

Would you vote for a man who openly says he favors a fair tax and wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service?

Would you vote for a man who opposes Obama’s efforts to offer illegal aliens amnesty and promises to secure the borders?

Would you vote for a man who decries a federal government “that wages an assault on our religious liberty”?

Would you vote for a man who wants a federal government that “works to defend the sanctity of human life” and would “uphold the sacrament of marriage”?

Would you vote for a man who defends our Second Amendment rights and condemns the effort ban ammunition?

Would you vote for a man who condemns a federal government that seeks to dictate school curriculums and wants to repeal “every word of Common Core”?

Would you vote for a man who would stand “unapologetically with the nation of Israel”?

Would you vote for a man who has pledged that he would do everything he could to ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon?

Would you vote for a man who openly says he would do everything he could to defeat radical Islamic terrorism?

I said I would on May 6, 2013 when he was beginning to get attention. Columnist George Will said he was “as good as it gets” when it comes to being a true conservative in Congress.

I am of course speaking of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) who has announced his candidacy to be the presidential candidate of the Republican Party.

I suspect that his announcement probably terrifies the Republican “Establishment” who have managed to serve up some good men, but poor candidates, to be President. When Republican voters stayed home, we got Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012.

Now they want to get the Party faithful to vote for Jeb Bush, but from my vantage point, the real base is ready to vote for anybody else, Sen. Cruz, Wisconsin Gov. Walker, and Sen. Rubio come to mind.

First of all, there is no Tea Party in the sense of a political party with its own candidates. What there is are Republicans who believe in the U.S. Constitution, small government, fiscal prudence, strong national security, and all those other values outlined in Ted Cruz’s speech at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

As Cruz said in an email about his announcement “Washington, D.C. has become completely disconnected from the values of real Americans. That’s why we are now more than $18 trillion in debt, why wages have stagnated, and why our foreign policy is an absolute mess.” That pretty much sums up what Obama has delivered.

Does it surprise anyone that Cruz’s candidacy was instantly attacked, not just by Democrats, but by a number of leading Republicans? Rep. Peter King, appearing on CNN’s “Situation Room” with host Wolf Blitzer, said, he’d “jump off that bridge” when he got to it if Cruz becomes the GOP candidate. He also accused Cruz and Rand Paul of being “counterfeit conservatives.” Nonsense!

The March 24 Wall Street Journal had a lengthy editorial devoted to “The Cruz Candidacy” noting that on most issues with the exception of immigration they found themselves in agreement with him and offered an upbeat view that “The good news for GOP voters is that their field of candidates in 2016 is going to be deep, offering many varieties of conservative leadership” but ending with reservations about “his polarizing style” which was another way of saying he is not a wishy-washy centrist.

We will hear more such accusations and criticisms and, as often as not, they will come from the GOP Establishment.

The GOP Establishment regards real conservatives as unable to secure election, preferring RINOs, Republicans in Name Only, and candidates who move as close to the center politically as possible. It seems to have escaped their notice that the Republicans elected in the last two midterm elections were sent to Washington, D.C. by Tea Party and other serious conservative voters.

It has been a long time since a real conservative Republican, Ronald Reagan, was elected President, but it can happen again as serious voters, particularly those who are independents, join with those who find Sen. Cruz a refreshing voice, Will he get the nomination? We are a very long way from the 2016 election, but at least we know it won’t be a boring one!

© Alan Caruba, 2015