Is Today the Beginning or the End of the Monarchy?

Today, January 14, 2013 President Obama stated at a White House press conference, “My understanding is the vice president’s going to provide a range of steps that we can take to reduce gun violence. Some of them will require legislation, some of them I can accomplish through executive action. And so I will be reviewing those today, and as I said, I will speak in more detail to what we’re going to go ahead and propose later in the week. But I’m confident that there are some steps that we can take that don’t require legislation and that are within my authority as president, and where you get a step that, has the opportunity to reduce the possibility of gun violence, then I want to go ahead and take it.”

On this day the Bill of Rights either died and a monarchy was established or it will go down in history as the day the monarchy died.

After the press conference Mark Levin stated, “I think we have an imperial president, he sounds imperial, he’s arrogant as hell and I’m furious about this and I’m going to tell you why. We are a magnificent country. We don’t need to be turned upside down. We don’t need to run from crisis to crisis to crisis. He’s bankrupting this country.”

Tom Trento, President of the Florida based organization The United West, made this exact point at a South Carolina TEA Party Coalition Convention two days ago:

Trento states, “These are times that try men’s souls. This is no time for the sunshine patriot.”

Two-hundred and thirty-eight years ago on March 20, 1775 inland at Richmond in what is now called St. John’s Church, Delegate Patrick Henry presented resolutions to raise a militia, and to put Virginia in a posture of defense. Henry’s opponents urged caution and patience until the crown replied to Congress’ latest petition for reconciliation.

On March 23rd, Henry presented a proposal to organize a volunteer company of cavalry or infantry in every Virginia county. By custom, Henry addressed himself to the Convention’s president, Peyton Randolph of Williamsburg. Henry’s words were not transcribed, but no one who heard them forgot their eloquence, or Henry’s closing words: “Give me liberty, or give me death!”

Are We Witnessing The Global Failure of the Ethical Life?

C. S. Lewis once remarked, “No one knows how bad he is until he has truly tried to be good.”

According to William Lane Craig, author of Reasonable Faith, “The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard made the same point. Kierkegaard thought of life as lived on three levels:

  1. The most basic level is the aesthetic stage, in which life is lived selfishly for the pleasure it affords. Life so lived ultimately issues in boredom and ennui.
  2. The next higher plane is the ethical stage, in which one lives according to strict moral standards. But this life results ultimately in despair because one cannot live up to the standard of the moral good.
  3. Only on the highest plane, the religious stage, is authentic existence truly to be found. Kierkegaard rightly saw that it is the failure of the ethical life that propels one to the religious plane.”

Does government without God lead to despair? Are people becoming desperate?

There are signs that individuals are acting out across America and around the world. The headlines are filled with efforts by politicians trying to impose strict ethical standards on people who live their lives based upon selfish pleasures. Is government hindering, and in some cases blocking, citizens from moving beyond the aesthetic and ethical stages to the religious plane?

After debating the existence of God with Louise Anthony, Professor at the University of Massachusetts, Craig wrote, “Anthony confessed that one of the drawbacks of the atheism she had come to embrace is that under atheism there is no redemption. Think of that! One’s sin and guilt are truly indelible. Nothing can undo what has been done and restore your innocence. But the Christian message is a message of redemption.”

Are there some in our government who believe that those who cling to their religion as somehow less worthy?

Craig writes, “Today so many people think of right and wrong, not as matters of fact, but as matters of taste.”

Craig quotes American Philosopher Richard Taylor, author of Ethics, Faith, and Reason , who wrote, The idea of . . . moral obligation is clear enough, provided that reference to some lawmaker higher . . . than those of the state is understood. In other words, our moral obligations can . . . be understood as those that are imposed by God. . . . But what if this higher-than-human lawgiver is no longer taken into account? Does the concept of a moral obligation . . . still make sense?

Taylor goes on to say:

The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, without noticing that in casting God aside they have also abolished the meaningfulness of right and wrong as well.

Read more.

This is the basis of the great debate taking place in America, Europe, the Middle East and across the globe. Are we seeing the failure of the ethical life? What is the next stage: the aesthetic or religious? Do we evolve or devolve?

The Human-care Complex: How It All Began

Today, January 1, 2013 Obamacare taxes hit all Americans.

This is the second in a series by Watchdog Wire to explain how we came to implement this, the most sweeping of all legislation in the history of America. To read the first column please click here.

The question to be answered is: Who and what got us to this point?

Jeanne M. Lambrew, Tom Daschle and Scott S. Greenberger in their book “Critical” published in 2006 stated, “UNTIL THE BEGINNING of the twentieth century, medical care in the United States was inexpensive because it was largely ineffective.” The authors provide no evidence for this statement but it is this progressive ideal that becomes the foundation for the Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act (HR 3590) passed by the 111th Congress commonly known as Obamacare.

Lambrew, Daschle and Greenberger wrote in “Critical”, “When Progressive Era [1890-1920] reformers turned their attention to workers’ health, they decided to put compulsory health insurance on the national agenda for the first time. In 1914, the American Association for Labor Legislation began drafting legislation to provide workers with free medical care, paid sick leave, and a modest death benefit. By 1917, the AALL bill had been introduced in fourteen state legislatures. The fate of the legislation foreshadowed the health insurance debates that occurred throughout the twentieth century.”

The American Association for Labor Legislation was formed to promote uniformity of labor legislation and to encourage the study of labor conditions with a view toward promoting desirable legislation. The Association was founded as a branch of the International Association for Labor Legislation. Preliminary discussions about forming the group occurred during 1905 and culminated in the first meeting of the Association held on February 15, 1906, in New York City.

“Physicians, fearing that any third-party payer, especially the government, would regulate doctors’ fees vigorously opposed it. They were allied with the insurance companies, which worried that government health insurance would undermine the private life insurance market. In a 1918 referendum, the measure was soundly defeated,” wrote Lambrew, Daschle and Greenberger.

While the arguments against government health insurance remain the same the progressive movement did not let it die.

In 1918 some unions supported the bill, but others joined with employers to fight it. Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), denounced the proposal as “a menace to the rights, welfare, and liberty of American workers.” According to Lambrew, Daschle and Greenberger “[O]pponents of national health insurance would raise the specter of ‘socialized medicine’ to great effect.”

What happened next set the stage for the creation of the Human-care Complex.

Because people had so little money, hospital occupancy rates plummeted. In search of a steady source of revenue, hospitals began offering “prepayment” plans to certain groups, such as hospital employees, teachers, and firefighters. For a monthly fee, members were guaranteed free hospital care if they ever needed it. So began the road to human-care insurance based upon expanding access based on illness rather than health.

Lambrew, Daschle and Greenberger wrote, “The hospital prepayment plans endured, evolving into the Blue Cross system and becoming the model for group health insurance as we know it today. One crucial feature of the plans was that they were employment-based—that is, they were offered to groups of workers large enough to spread out the cost of caring for the sick or injured. Still spooked by the prospect of government-sponsored health insurance, many employers accepted the Blue Cross system as a more palatable alternative.”

But just like all private sector solutions created through necessity, the government took an interest and become more directly involved in human-care via the tax codes.

“Our employment-based system solidified during World War II, when the federal government [tax] exempted ‘fringe benefits’ such as health insurance from wage and price,” noted Lambrew, Daschle and Greenberger.

And so it grew. To attract workers, who were scarce because so many men were in the military during WW II, some employers offered them generous health coverage. The government’s decision to exempt health benefits from personal income taxes accelerated the trend. Unions bolstered the nascent insurance system by cutting their own deals with hospitals and later with the Blue Cross.

The next column will look into the expansion of the government/human-care industrial complex from 1945 to today.

Grassroots movement to arm teachers gains momentum

Long before Wayne LaPierre held his press conference the internet was alive with practical solutions on how to prevent another Newtown, CT like attack on schools. Most comments coalesced around arming school based administrators and teachers. One idea is to provide concealed carry training to school based administrators and on a voluntary basis to teachers. The school district would cover the costs of the training, license and purchase of an approved weapon.

Virginia is considering legislation requiring teachers be armed.

Several photographs and photo-shopped signs were circulated graphically demonstrating the popularity of this solution. Two stand out and were the most often received by WDW. Below is a widely distributed photo allegedly depicting an Israeli teacher and her class of elementary school students:

armed teacher in israel

This photo-shopped sign with the caption “Which sign is most likely to deter a school shooting?” is widely circulating on Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites:

 GunFreeZoneSign

Comments on these images may be best represented by a common sense approach to the issue. The argument goes something like this – if there is something valuable that society wants to protect and defend then society must have armed guards in place. Examples of protected areas include: government offices at every level, sensitive installations such as military bases or nuclear power plants, airports, banks, prisons and national parks.

Many are asking why we are not similarly protecting our most precious natural resources – our children?

USA Today reports, “About 70% of public schools don’t have [a] police officer and almost 60% don’t have any security staff. Those with police tend to be big and urban schools, according to a USA TODAY data analysis.” Clearly at some point schools decide to have an armed guard present. The only restriction is cost weighted against the potential threat.

Political opponents focus on taking away guns, not on protecting the children as is done for most politicians. History and statistics work against opponents to arming those most responsible for the protection of our children – school based administrators and teachers.

PLEASE TAKE OUR ONLINE SURVEY ON THE QUESTION OF ARMING SCHOOL STAFF:

RELATED COLUMNS:

New Jersey Town Plans to Place Armed Guards in Schools

White House Petition to Deport British Citizen Piers Morgan for attacking 2nd Amendment goes over 25,000

School that President Obama’s daughters attend has 11 armed guards

The Two Faces of Gunslinger Charlie Crist

When Charlie Crist was a Republican and later an Independent, he always identified himself as a strong supporter of the rights of gun owners, but now as a Democrat, it’s clear that his past support for the Second Amendment was based on political expediency and not principled conviction.

“We need to have some restrictions, that’s pretty obvious to most people. What do you need a 30-clip magazine for? Not to go hunting deer. I can tell you that because I hunt deer.” – Charlie Crist

There are many instances where ”Chain-Gang” Charlie was as a staunch political gunslinger as there ever was one that would never waiver from his pro-gun positions. Is there a better example of a political opportunist in the country than Charlie Crist?

Charlie Crist with shotgun

Crist is ‘Pro-Gun:’

“I’m pro-gun. I strongly support the Second Amendment. It’s fundamental. It’s our Second Amendment for a reason; the Founding Fathers thought it was that important.” (Florida Times-Union, 8/20/06)

Crist Opposed Bans on Assault Weapons:

Crist Opposed Both the Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Bill. “Graham voted for the ban on assault weapons and for the Brady Bill, which imposed a waiting period for handgun purchases. Crist opposes both. “I believe citizens do have the right to bear arms,” said Crist, who is a hunter.” (Orlando Sentinel, 10/11/98)

Crist Says We Need to Ban Criminals, Not Guns:

Crist: “Yes, I do, [own] a shotgun. I hunt pheasant, duck. I’m a very strong defender of the Second Amendment. What we need to do is ban criminals, not guns. As a member of the Senate select committee on juvenile justice reform I took testimony at a hearing from a young man involved in a life of crime as a youth, who had turned that life around. (He) explained how foolish it was to try to limit law-abiding citizens’ rights to have a handgun . . . Prior to a criminal’s illegal act involving a handgun, they don’t ordinarily take the time to look . . . to see if they’re violating the law.” (St. Petersburg Times, 11/5/94)

Charlie Crist Received A+ Rating from NRA for Never Taking a Position Adversarial to 2nd Amendment:

Former Florida NRA Chairman Marion Hammer: ‘You Can’t Get an A+ Unless You Have a Strong History on Our Issues.’ “Hammer said Crist earned an “A” rating as a political newcomer, the highest grade bestowed to a rookie candidate by the NRA, and subsequently received an “A+” in future years based on his voting record. “You can’t get an ‘A+’ unless you have a strong history on our issues,” Hammer said.” (Politifact, 7/14/10)

Crist advocated bringing guns to the work place:

Crist Supported the ‘Bring your Gun to Work Bill’ “I understand there are competing interests. There always are in this process. “But people being protected is most important to me.” (Orlando Sentinel, 4/15/08)

Crist denied it was “too easy” to get guns in FL

“I understand … there are some numbers that are disconcerting, particularly as it relates to murder and other violent crimes,” Crist said Tuesday. Despite the rise in gun crimes, Crist said it is not too easy to get a gun in Florida but didn’t elaborate on why gun crimes are going up so much. (AP, 6/26/07)

The Keyser Soze School Of Ruthless Politics

If you’ve seen the movie The Usual Suspects then you know that Keyser Soze is not a nice guy. But he’s sort of the good guy.

Somebody is going to take advantage of you and your political party. It’s not a question of if, just when. And if you’re not ready for it, everything you’ve built could come tumbling down.

To quote the movie, this is what you’re up against:

“There was a gang of Hungarians that wanted their own mob. They realized that to be in power, you didn’t need guns or money or even numbers. You just needed the will to do what the other guy wouldn’t.”

And this is the Keyser Soze solution:

“And then he showed these men of will what will really is.”

A Test Of Political Will And Integrity

The ruthless political tactics that some people use are void of integrity. They’re so far over the the ethical line that it should be criminal. Most of the time it’s not. Not exactly.

With experience, you learn to see it coming and you can just walk away from the political deal. But even the most savvy political people get taken from time to time. And this is where you have to make a choice.

Do you keep your integrity intact? Or do you get ruthless?

Okay, let’s switch gears here and get a little more serious. The truth is, there are some good, solid political practices that you can follow when you’re neck-deep in it with ruthless politicians.

Real Political Solutions For Bad Political Situations:

  1. Stay afloat. Don’t ignore your good constituents. It helps you moving forward and brings some light to a dark day.
  2. Keep cool and calm. Overreacting is acting without thinking. The ruthless gang of politicians you’re dealing with expect it. They’re probably even hoping for it.
  3. Strategize. You need a comprehensive plan. And maybe tightening up the political ship. You want to figure out their possible reactions to your action. And how you’re going to steer the political situation to make their reactions mute. The best political plans forge forward no matter what they say or do. Or don’t say and don’t do.
  4. Be persistent. Stick to your guns and execute your political plan. If you can’t go around them, keep banging on the door until someone answers and meets your demands to rectify the political situation. Every day, go back and bang on the door again. And twice on the Sunday talk shows.
  5. Learn. Don’t get in deeper once you realize there’s a problem. And if there are similar loose ends in other areas of your politics, tie them up so it doesn’t happen again. Exercising some basic political due diligence is important. ‘Cause you never know.

Predatory politicians will always be around. They move from place to place constantly; they’re always there for a good time, not a long time.

Hold them in one spot for long enough, and just like sharks, they can’t breathe.

Sorry Keyser. We don’t need you on this one.

This column is an adaptation of the The Keyser Soze School Of Ruthless Business posted by Shane in 2007.

RELATED COLUMNS:

The Fiscal Cliff And The Keyser Soze Option

More Members of Congress Threaten to Take Economy Over the Fiscal Cliff

Clip from the movie The Usual Suspects:

Progressives: Focusing on the Micro, Ignoring the Macro

Many wonder why so many people embrace the progressive utopia.  There are progressives in all political parties, in every community, state and nation. There have been many theories put forward on why individuals become progressives. One that is not addressed is: Progressives consistently focus on the micro and ignore the macro. From finance, to politics, to public policy, to national security, to foreign affairs, to science, the progressive, like a laser, focuses on the smallest common denominator.

Progressives proverbially cannot see the forest for the trees.

Some practical examples are in order.

Foreign Policy – Take the current crisis in the Middle East and the progressive diplomatic approach. Progressives focus upon the Israel-Palestinian conflict ignoring the larger issue of the rise of radical Islam in the fifty-six members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). OIC members consist of 1.4 billion people, of which the most powerful militarily surround Israel. Progressives see Israel as the bully or aggressor. Taking a broader view one sees that it is Israel that is the victim of aggression on multiple fronts and from multiple aggressors. It is outnumbered, out spent and out manned.

Public Policy – Progressives view public policy in terms of the smallest common denominator – the individual. Programs are created not to make society better but rather to address the needs of the individual. Crime is a consistent problem, so progressives focus on guns. Control or get rid of guns and crimes of violence will disappear is the mantra. They focus on an individual case, such the  Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida, to make the case for gun control and against self-defense, while ignoring the daily violence occurring in places like Chicago, St. Louis and Philadelphia. If guns were the cause of murders then cars cause accidents and spoons cause obesity.

Social Policy – Progressives focus on contraception to reduce the number of un-wed mothers. Progressives ignore the larger issue of a consistent decline in the number of  wed-mothers and traditional families, the building block of every prosperous society. With more traditional families more children are welcomed as a good for society. It is single parenthood and the cycle of single parents begetting more single parents that is the greater challenge for society. Progressives subsidize un-wed mothers, while punishing traditional families. Abortion on demand deprives the US of over 772,000 new citizens each year. More than enough to meet our long term workforce needs, without immigration.

Financial Policy – Progressives focus on the 1% who pay more than their fair share of taxes, rather than the 50% who pay no taxes at all. Micro-managing a financial system such as that of any nation is impossible. Such management done by government leads to errors on a grand scale. Witness various nations with central banks failing in Europe and the West. Industriousness and entrepreneurship are replaced with risk aversion. Banks not longer hold the risk, government does. Homeowners do not own their mortgages, FHA does. Businesses do not focus on customers they focus on government. Economic micro-management inextricably leads to more government micro-mangers, debt and ever more spending.

Politics – Progressives focus on sub-groups and sub-sub-groups rather than fundamental policy. Big ideas are replaced with pandering to individual voters.  Attacking the political opponents is preferred to debating ideas and finding solutions for big problems. The more the bigger picture is ignored the more likely progressives will be elected.

Science – Progressives focus micro science. Evolution is micro-science. Earth science is reduced to single meteorological events and ignoring recorded weather patterns over long periods of time. The earth historically warms and cools in cycles. Climate changes by its very nature. Man cannot make nature, or weather, change. However, progressives focus on the polar bear population rather than the human population to create policy.

Governing – Finally, progressives govern in the micro at every level of public office. This is the mantra of progressives – think little. Whether it is regulating big gulps or what health insurance you may purchase they consistently think of ways to interject themselves in every aspect of  individual lives. From providing rules of behavior like eating habits to micro-managing entire systems like medicine, progressives are always there.

The only thing that will stop progressives is Herbert Stein’s Law, which he expressed as, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”

 

Third Party Candidates give Florida to President Obama

President Obama, late in the night, took the state of Florida, thereby ensuring his second term in office.

An analysis of the numbers shows that Obama won Florida by a margin of 46,039 votes, a steep decline from his 2008 margin of victory of 204,577. What was different then from now? According to the voting results for Florida it was the third party candidates that gave the President the state and a second term.

The ten Independent candidates drew a total of 70,949 votes.

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson famously stated, “If you want to waste your vote, vote for me.” Truer words were never spoken.

Presidential Election 2012 – Florida Votes

 

CANDIDATE PARTY VOTES PCT.
Barack Obama (i) Dem 4,129,360 3.5%
Mitt Romney GOP 4,083,321 3.5%
Gary Johnson Lib 43,479 0.0%
Jill Stein Grn 8,676 0.0%
Roseanne Barr PFP 7,971 0.0%
Tom Stevens Obj 3,792 0.0%
Virgil Goode CST 2,527 0.0%
Rocky Anderson JP 1,712 0.0%
Tom Hoefling AIP 912 0.0%
Andre Barnett RP 790 0.0%
Stewart Alexander Soc 776 0.0%
Peta Lindsay PSL 314 0.0%

 

Chart courtesy of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.

Finally, President Obama won the popular vote by 2,357,500 over Governor Romney. The Independent candidates took 1,781,825 popular votes. That leaves President Obama with a victory margin of 575,675 popular votes.

America is truly a divided nation. It does not get any closer than this.

RELATED COLUMNS:

The areas of Florida with the most libertarian influence for Gary Johnson

Did Third-Party Presidential Candidates Spoil Florida for Romney?

The Spoiler Effect – Wikipedia

BREAKING FROM FOX NEWS: Smoking Gun Benghazi Cable

Catherine Herridge on Greta van Susteren 10/31/12 discussing classified diplomatic cable (dated 8/16/12, almost a month before Benghazi attack) obtained by Fox News.

“I really believe, having read it, that it is the smoking gun warning here… I can’t think of anything that would be more specific than if these groups had emailed the state department and said, ‘here’s the time, here’s the place, and here’s the method of the attack’… If you couple this with the statements that a videotape was somehow responsible, what you see is that is completely undercut… What I see is a growing body of evidence that the state department has culpability for the death of the Ambassador and those other three Americans.”

James Carafano at The Heritage Foundation asks five fundamental and serious questions about the Benghazi cable that was ignored by the Obama Administration. The cable concluded that the consulate could not withstand a “coordinated attack.” Further, the cable identified terrorist groups that were operating in the area. The existence of this document raises some serious questions:

1. Why was the cable kept secret for so long?
2. How could anyone rule out a terrorist attack?
3. Why didn’t the Administration provide any interim findings of their investigation into the Benghazi attack?
4. Why wasn’t a coordinated rapid response force ready to go?
5. How long do we have to wait to get answers to obvious questions?

RELATED COLUMN:

Benghazi blunder: Obama unworthy commander-in-chief

Comment on Michael Moore’s Potty Mouth Video because you can’t on YouTube

Watchdog Wire daily receives dozens of email links to videos produced by politicians and outside groups promoting a political agenda. Two videos prepared by outside groups came to our offices yesterday. The first is produced by Michael Moore and funded by MoveOn.org. The second was produced and funded by Special Ops Speaks.

The contrast between these two videos was so stark that the Editorial staff thought you would like to comment on each of them and the message they are sending just one week before the election.

Here are the two videos in the order received by our Florida office. First the Michael Moore video followed by the Special Ops Speaks video:

Michael Moore – A Message from The Greatest Generation – WARNING GRAPHIC LANGUAGE

Special Ops Speaks – Leaks, Lies, Libya…Lack of Leadership

Please comment and share this column with your friends.

CAN YOU NAME ANY PROMINENT BLACK MORMONS?

Column courtesy of Frances Rice:

Democrats consistently push the false narrative that Mormons are racist, while ignoring the existence of black Mormons. Then, hypocritically, Democrats demean black Mormons who step into the spotlight. Witness how Democrats trashed Mia Love, the mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah, and the Republican Party nominee for the United States House of Representatives in Utah’s 4th congressional district. An article that describes the despicable treatment of Mayor Love is “Hate-Filled Screeds Appear on Mia Love’s Wikipedia Page” by Patrick Hobin.

Gladys Knight

Among the black Mormons not in the political arena and largely ignored is Gladys Knight who became a Mormon in 1998 after her son Jimmy and his wife and children did so. Ms. Knight was successful as an R&B singer in the late 1960s and early 1970s. She now writes and performs Mormon Gospel music. Sam Warren of “The Drifters”, another famous black R&B group of the 1960s and 1970s, also became a Mormon. A well-known black personality who is also a Mormon is the famous college and NFL football hero Burgess Owens. NBA All-Star player Thurl Bailey became a Mormon, too, and now composes Mormon music.

LeRoy Eldridge Cleaver

An intriguing historical personality is deceased LeRoy Eldridge Cleaver who went from being a Black Panther to Black Mormon. Mr. Cleaver was the Minister of Information in the early Black Panther Party, a combination of Black Nationalism and Marxism. In 1968, he wrote “Soul on Ice” which became an international bestseller and was once considered the “Manifesto” of black nationalists and white radicals.

Among the lesser known, but influential black Mormons is Jesse Thomas Jr., a former Baptist preacher, who became a Mormon in 1989 and now serves in local priesthood-leadership positions. In 1995 Lee Radcliff, a black Baptist minister who served as a pastor in Chicago and Mississippi for decades, also became a Mormon.

The press cynically stirs up religious bigotry against Gov. Mitt Romney because his faith is Mormonism, a religion that embraces our constitutional principles of free enterprise and individual liberty. This effort to get the voting public to hate Mormons is anchored on the false notion that Mormons are racists. The Mormon denigrators focus on how, from 1849 to 1978, the Mormon Church had a policy against ordaining black men to the priesthood. In 1978, church leaders ceased the racial restriction policy for black men, declaring that they had received a revelation instructing them to do so.

In spite of that old rule about the priesthood, the Mormon Church has always had an open membership policy for all races and today’s church opposes racial discrimination and racism. In 1997, there were approximately 500,000 black members of the Mormon Church, accounting for about 5% of the total membership. Since 1997, the black membership has grown substantially, especially in West Africa, where two temples have been built.

It goes against our constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion to declare that a person is not fit to be our nation’s leader because of that person’s religion. No one has called for Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid to denounce his Mormon religion in order to be the leader of the US Senate.

Frances Rice

Frances Rice, Esquire – Lieutenant Colonel, US Army (Retired)

Frances Rice’s great-great-grandparents were slaves. She spent her formative years in poverty in the segregated South during the 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s. Frances was born in Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, the same hospital where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was born. She occasionally attended Ebenezer Baptist Church where Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr. was the pastor.

She joined the Army in 1964 as a Private and retired as a Lieutenant Colonel after 20 years of active service. She received a Bachelor of Science degree from Drury College in 1973, a Master of Business Administration from Golden Gate University in 1976, and a Juris Doctorate degree from the University of California, Hastings College of Law in 1977 – all while serving in the US Army.

During twenty years of active duty in the US Army, Frances served in a variety of positions, including commander of a WAC company, adjutant of a basic combat training brigade, a prosecuting attorney, and chief of the administrative law division. She also served as a special assistant to the Army Judge Advocate General and an adviser to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Equal Opportunity.

Subsequent to her military career, Frances worked for the McDonnell Douglas Corporation, serving first as a member of that company’s “think tank,” and then as a government contract advisor. She later taught Business Law for the European Division of the University of Maryland in Brussels, Belgium.

MONDAY, OCTOBER 22ND: WatchdogWire Live-Streaming Pre & Post-Presidential Debate III Commentary

Sarasota, FL – Watchdog Wire, a citizen journalism project of The Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, will provide pre and post-debate coverage and commentary on the final Presidential Debate, focusing on foreign policy, at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla. on Monday, October 22 starting at 7:00 p.m. The event will be live streamed on Watchdogwire.com.

The event will feature a Watchdog Wire panel that will consist of Mark Langfan, expert on Israeli and Middle East affairs, Tom Trento, president of The United West, and Dr. Richard Swier, U.S. Army (Ret.) and editor of Watchdog Wire – Florida.

Special guests will include—Gary Bernsten, former CIA station chief and author of Jawbreaker, Clare Lopez, nuclear arms and Russian expert, and Frank Gaffney, former Assistant Secretary of Defense.

“This coverage is unique because we have scheduled guests who have been implementers of U.S. foreign policy globally,” said Swier. “Watchdog Wire is focused on high quality citizen reporting that adds to the debate.”

“The Franklin Center is committed to giving citizen journalists the resources to investigating ground-breaking issues that are of great importance to every American,” said Erik Telford, vice president of Strategic Initiatives and Outreach for the Franklin Center.

“This is the final Presidential debate with a focus on U.S. foreign policy,” Swier noted “Given events in Benghazi, Egypt, Syria and Iran it is critical to understand how each candidate will face the challenges.”

Viewers may tune in on their computer, iPad or smart phone by going to www.WatchdogWire.com and clicking on the “Presidential Debate – Round III ad” on the right side of the page, or you can follow this link.

Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is a leader in non-profit journalism. It was founded in 2009 to address falling standards in the media as well as a steep falloff in reporting on state government and provides professional training and assistance with a mission of exposing waste, fraud, and abuse in government.

VIDEO: Mark Levin and Rep. Allen West on Liberty & Tyranny

Mark Levin attended an event with Allen West. Both men talked about liberty and tyranny and what some call liberty is in fact tyranny. The choices laid out between a nation based upon unalienable rights and one based upon Statism are articulated by both men.

Rep. West in Part I states, “Individuals have sovereignty. Entrepreneurial spirit is rewarded. The pursuit of happiness not the guarantee of happiness. If you take God out of this nation then the words of Thomas Jefferson mean nothing.”

In Part II Levin states, “We live in a post Constitutional period. There are people in this country that do not like this country. Obamacare is about uniformity. What is going on is immoral. This President’s policies are political child abuse.”

Please watch these two videos provided by a citizen journalist from Florida:

PART I

PART II

VIDEO: Democrat Candidate Patrick Murphy Calls TEA Party “Extremist”

Democrat Congressional Candidate Patrick Murphy runs away from a reporter asking him to clarify his statement that the “Tea Party are Extremists” made during a debate with his opponent, incumbent Rep. Allen West (R). Murphy is Rep. West’s opponent for Florida’s new Congressional District 18 seat.

On Thursday October 4, 2012 during a debate with Rep. West, Murphy made the statement, “I used to be a Republican but because the TEA Party people are extremists, I decided to become a Democrat!”

J. Mark Campbell, investigative reporter for The United West, repeatedly asked Murphy to explain his statement about the TEA Party after the debate. Campbell approached Murphy and then, it was OFF TO THE RACES…as he literally, RAN-A-WAY!

Following the debate Rep. West stood outside in the parking lot answering press questions for 30 minutes. Murphy was no where to be found.