I Now Pronounce You Man and Wives

The Family Research Council reports:

Turns out, marriage isn’t about two people who love each other — it’s about three or five or six. That was Judge Clark Waddoups’s opinion in the most explosive ruling the media isn’t talking about. Late last week, the U.S. District Judge’s ruling should have kicked off the evening news in every major market across America. Instead, his 91-page pro-polygamy bombshell is nothing but a back-page blip. And that’s no accident. When Waddoups struck down Utah’s criminal ban on “plural marriages” last Friday, the networks started tiptoeing around the story like the cultural grenade it is.

Like us, they know the Left’s dirty little secret — that people who support same-sex “marriage” are saying “I do” to a lot more than they bargained for. While liberals insist that same-sex “marriage” is the ultimate goal, their demands only lay the groundwork for other relationships to demand the same entitlements. Once the courts and policy makers depart from the natural definition of marriage, the Left has a legal foundation for any arrangement between consenting adults.

Judge Waddoups essentially admitted as much. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court outlawed polygamy years ago, Waddoups insists that he can’t possibly rest on that decision in modern society. In his words, America has “developed constitutional jurisprudence that now protects individuals from the criminal consequences intended by legislatures to apply to certain personal choices.”

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act this summer only sped the process along. Polygamists popped the corked on a little champagne of their own after the June ruling, as they wait their turn for nationwide acceptance. “We’re very happy with [the ruling on DOMA]” said Joe Darger, a Utah polygamist, “I think [the court] has taken a step in correcting some inequality, and that’s certainly something that’s going to trickle down and impact us… I think the government needs to now recognize that we have a right to live free as much as anyone else.” Proponents of polygamy are riding the homosexual movement’s wave of success all the way to legitimacy.

And that’s exactly what the mainstream media is afraid of. They see the potential for this debate to sway the middle and derail the same-sex “marriage” train. Recognizing that their destinies are very much intertwined, polygamists are using the same playbook as their same-sex “marriage” counterparts: Step one: overturn the law. Step two: demand recognition. Step three: force acceptance.

Ten years ago, Justice Antonin Scalia predicted exactly that in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court decision rolling back sodomy statutes. With prophetic insight, he pointed to the threat to state laws “based on moral choices” against “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution… adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity.” Anyone being intellectually honest knew this was where liberals were pushing America. Of course, the media for years laughed off groups like FRC who warned that the Left’s goal isn’t same-sex “marriage” but any kind of marriage.

Just this year, extremists like Jillian Keenan did conservatives a favor by owning up to the fact that homosexual “marriage” is just the warm-up act to an even more shocking agenda. “Let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage,” she wrote in a column for Slate. “We need to legalize polygamy too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.”

That wasn’t a typo. Keenan actually argues for polygamy — a practice that degrades and devalues the role of women — as the feminist alternative. And the Left wants to accuse conservatives of a war on women? Legalizing polygamy would undermine the Left’s banner cause — equality — and turn back the clock on women’s rights that has become the standard of Western Civilization.

Shows like “Sister Wives” may make people sympathetic. It may even help break down inhibitions (as evidenced in Gallup’s poll). But once Americans start to realize the practical implications of these parallel movements — for their school curriculum, tax dollars, and free speech rights — the public debate will only intensify. Despite the media’s silence and homosexual activists’ increasing campaign of intimidation, the American people may have finally found the inspiration to push back against the forces trying to redefine marriage. It’s never too late to change course — and this decision may have finally given the nation a reason to try.

New Florida Poll: Christie, Clinton Most Popular, Crist leads Scott for Governor

SAINT LEO, Fla., Dec. 12, 2013 /PRNewswire/ — The two most popular politicians among Florida voters are New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former First Lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to a new poll by the Saint Leo University Polling Institute.

Clinton, a Democrat, is viewed favorably by 59 percent of Florida likely voters and unfavorably by 37 percent, for a net favorability rating of +22. Christie, a Republican, has a favorability rating of 55/29, for a net favorability rating of +26. This compares to Vice President Joe Biden’s favorability rating of 50/44 (+6) and that of former Republican vice presidential nominee and current U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin 39/40 (-1).

Should Clinton run for president, she would receive a warm embrace from Florida Democrats. Clinton’s favorability rating among Democrats stands at 91 percent, with just 6 percent taking an unfavorable view of her. Nine in 10 Democrats (89 percent) said they would consider supporting her, if she ran for president. Comparatively fewer said the same about Biden (34 percent).

Christie has competition for the affections of Republican primary voters. Slightly more likely-voter Republicans say they could support Jeb Bush (44 percent), the former governor, and current U.S. Sen.Marco Rubio (42 percent), if they were to run than Christie (38 percent). U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky(30 percent), Paul Ryan (28 percent), and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas (24 percent) also have large numbers of voters who say they could support them.

In the Florida governor’s race, former Gov. Charlie Crist holds a 46-34 percent lead over incumbent Gov.Rick Scott. Scott’s numbers are weighed down in part by some cracks in his own base. While 68 percent of Republicans have a favorable view of Scott, just 59 percent of Republicans say they would re-elect him. A significant percentage of Republicans hold an unfavorable view of Scott (24 percent) and 17 percent say they plan to vote for Republican-turned-Democrat Crist.

The survey put Florida’s U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson’s approval rating at 48/33 (+15) and his re-elect rating at 43 percent. Senator Marco Rubio’s approval ratio is 45/41 (+4) with a 40 percent re-elect rating.

The methodology used can be found at the Saint Leo University Polling Institute website.

SOURCE: Saint Leo University Polling Institute. Web Site: http://polls.saintleo.edu

Politically Correct is Political Ignorance

Americans are inclined to believe that, with the collapse of the former Soviet Union, the Cold War from 1945 to 1991 was over. In fact, that war of ideologies, communism versus capitalism, began in the 1920s after the Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin, initiated a covert program to undermine America. Today we call it “political correctness” and its impact on our society is sapping it of its true history and values.

“Willing Accomplices: How KGB Covert Intelligence Agents Created Political Correctness, Obama’s Hate-America-First Political Platform, and Destroyed America” by Kent Clizbe, a former CIA espionage officer, reveals how active and covert agents of the KGB, the Soviet security and intelligence agency, has led inevitably to the election of a President who hates America and is seeking to undermine it in every way possible.

If that sounds implausible, keep in mind that Obama is the first President to shake the hand of Raul Castro, the brother and current president of Communist Cuba, at the recent Mandela memorial. He is the same President who told Dmitry Medvedev, the third president of the Russian Federation from 2008 to 2012, that he would have more “flexibility” in his second term to carry out its ideological war on America.

Clizbe’s book deserves far more notice, but in a nation in which its mainstream print and broadcast outlets are filled with Leftists, that is not going to happen. He details and documents how the messengers of the attacks “denigrated American patriotism, capitalism and individualism, and called into question American foreign policy.” He calls those messengers Russia’s “willing accomplices.”

“By the 1980s, full-blown politically correctness (had) infected academia, education, the media, Hollywood, and American society in general. Americans were constantly bombarded with reminders of their hatefulness, bigotry, racism, sexism, and imperialism. Confused by the message of hate and disgust, while their daily lives were filled with positive energy, normal Americans became wracked with guilt.”

“They were reminded daily that they were guilty of slavery, bigotry, killing babies in Vietnam, oppressing minorities and women around the globe, stealing the continent from the Indians, being arrogant in dealing with foreigners, killing the Earth with their hairspray, and various other sins.”

 

It took the imposition of Obamacare to awaken many Americans to the danger of a government intent on taking over one sixth of the nation’s economy, the movement called the Tea Party, and it is awakening millions more to the threat to their lives.

This is why, during his first campaign, Obama accused Midwesterners of getting “bitter, they cling to their guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment…” This is why, during his first term, he launched a major effort to attack the Second Amendment and why American opposition to illegal aliens is characterized as wrong.

It explains why the Obama administration bailout of General Motors which should have been allowed to file for bankruptcy and reorganization has cost Americans ten billion dollars. It explains why billions were wasted on “investments” in solar and wind turbine manufacturers that went bankrupt shortly afterward, and why some six trillion dollars was added to our national debt in Obama’s first term.

It explains why Obamacare, a full-fledged disaster, was passed by Democratic Party votes by Senators who never read the bill. No Republican voted for this bill. And hundreds of thousands of Americans will die because they can no longer afford their medications, no longer have access to their personal physicians, and can no longer gain admittance to hospitals.

Political correctness has been advanced by a fundamental formula: Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter-accusations.”

Little wonder why conservative politicians and the Tea Party movement are constantly attacked as bigoted and evil.

Political correctness infuses all aspects of our culture today, but is most evident in our school systems and our institutions of higher learning. Glizbe warns that “Children exposed to this insidious self-hate are programed to hate themselves, their ancestors and predecessors, their country’s founders and leaders, past and present.” It explains why a massive effort was launched to ensure that neither the salute to the American flag, the pledge of allegiance, and prayer are no longer a part of the daily regime in our schools.

It is evident in Hollywood where one of its famed purveyors, film director Oliver Stone said “Nationalism and patriotism are the two most evil forces that I know of…” It explains why films like “Wall Street” denigrate capitalism.

It explains why so much of American culture, particularly what passes for entertainment, has fallen victim to the massive covert effort that was launched after the end of the Russian civil war to imposed communism. “The goal was to destroy the core moral fabric of American society.”

It will take an equally massive effort by Americans, patriots, to fight against and reverse the harm that has been done to our society and our governance–check out the numbers and names of the Progressive Caucus in Congress—but it must be done in the face of President Obama’s campaign to reduce the influence of America on global affairs, to create class warfare against America’s “millionaires and billionaires”, and the vast expansion of the “social programs” that have millions of Americans on some form of government dole while we struggle to overcome the longest recession since World War Two.

It is the naked face of communism. Political correctness is political ignorance.

A vast re-education of generations of Americans will be needed to reverse its effect on our lives and the future of the nation.

© Alan Caruba, 2013

The Project: How the Republican Party is Abandoning Ronald Reagan

The Republican party has decided it can’t win national elections. Finally, they get it but … do they? There is a “new” strategy out called the “Growth and Opportunity Project“.

The Project states:

At our core, Republicans have comfortably remained the Party of Reagan without figuring out what comes next. Ronald Reagan is a Republican hero and role model who was first elected 33 years ago— meaning no one under the age of 51 today was old enough to vote for Reagan when he first ran for President. Our Party knows how to appeal to older voters, but we have lost our way with younger ones. We sound increasingly out of touch. As Mike Gerson and Pete Wehner wrote recently, “It is no wonder that Republican policies can seem stale; they are very nearly identical to those offered up by the Party more than 30 years ago.For Republicans to design an agenda that applies to the conditions of 1980 is as is Ronald Reagan designed his agenda for conditions that existed in the Truman years.”

The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself. We have become expert in how to provide ideological reinforcement to like-minded people, but devastatingly we have lost the ability to be persuasive with, or welcoming to, those who do not agree with us on every issue.Instead of driving around in circles on an ideological cul-de-sac, we need a Party whose brand of conservatism invites and inspires new people to visit us. We need to remain America’s conservative alternative to big-government, redistribution-to-extremes liberalism, while building a route into our Party that a non-traditional Republican will want to travel. Our standard should not be universal purity; it should be a more welcoming conservatism.

Kevin Price from Renew America writes, “If you know of Ronald Reagan, you are likely to be aware of his ‘three legged stool.’ Reagan developed a success formula to build winning coalitions that was as simple as it was brilliant. A sample of that simplicity and one of the hallmarks of Reagan’s policies was his ‘three legged stool.’ Reagan’s policies were built on three ideas; free enterprise, strong defense, and pro-family social policies. He chose these three because they, of course, reflected his own values, but he also realized that each of these ideas have enormous appeal on their own.”

So what is “a more welcoming conservatism”?

Is this George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism rebranded? It appears so. What did that get the Republican party? The party of smaller government expanded Medicare with the prescription drug program. The Prescription Drug Liability is over $22 trillion. The national debt went up, not down, under Bush 43. Don’t forget G.W. Bush’s famous or infamous statement, “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.” This brought on the first stimulus and bailout of major Wall Street corporations. Is this what The Project is talking about?

G.W. Bush in his second term abandoned all free market principles. He also abandoned his “Axis of Evil” national security policy. He took down Iraq but left North Korea and Iran standing. Both are stronger now than ever.

The Project is a “pogo stick” strategy.

Price wrote, “Today, the common cry from economic conservatives is that they are the only ones with a message that matters to the voting public. After 40 years of Roe vs. Wade, we have two generations who only know a country with abortion on demand, they argue. Secondly, many conservatives have grown suspicious of ‘the military’ leg. They believe that just as the government has gotten suspicious in its domestic spending, it has also lost its bearings when it comes to defense and has found itself being internationalists with muscle. Essentially, ‘the three legged stool’ is being replaced by a pogo stick. A single area of interest and concern — the economy, being the springboard for political success.”

Here is what The Project states, “One of the contributors to this problem is that while Democrats tend to talk about people, Republicans tend to talk about policy. Our ideas can sound distant and removed from people’s lives. Instead of connecting with voters’ concerns, we too often sound like bookkeepers. We need to do a better job connecting people to our policies.We are the Party of private-sector economic growth because that is the best way to create jobs and opportunity. That is the best way to help people earn an income, achieve success and take care of their families.” Republicans need to talk about principles not policy.

Ada Fisher, the Republican National Committeewoman from North Carolina, told The Project, “There are some people who need the government.”

Taking care of families, some people need government? Is that a conservative or progressive position?

Barry Goldwater wrote, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

It not the economy stupid, its the three legged stool!

Defining Moment: Hillel International Confronts Swarthmore College Chapter on Zionism

Eric Fingerhut

Eric Fingerhut, Pres. & CEO Hillel International

For more than a decade we have been witness to Hillel Chapters on college and university campuses drifting to a policy of tolerating leftist Jewish ‘progressive’ and Muslim groups advocating delegitimization of Israel.  We have seen it in Hillel chapters abetting efforts of groups like Jewish Voice for Peace, Students for Justice for Palestine, Muslim Student Association chapters putting on annual Israel Apartheid Awareness Weeks on college campuses across the US. In too many instances they were supported by local Jewish Federations in programming activities, as well as Jewish and Israel studies programs and faculty.  This ‘tolerance of the intolerant’ by Hillel campus chapters may have been supported in the past by Hillel International: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life  (HI). However, with the arrival in April 2013 of HI’s new President and CEO, Eric Fingerhut, this legacy of former HI President Wayne Firestone has ended.

The confrontation between the Hillel Chapter at elite Swarthmore College near Philadelphia and Fingerhut over the chapter’s so-called Open Hillel policy of presenting speakers delegitimizing Israel marks a new and potentially important development for this Jewish campus organization.  The controversy has come to a head when recently the Harvard College Hillel Chapter barred a presentation by former Knesset Speaker, Avraham Burg,  co-sponsored by an anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions group.   Burg is a controversial leftist proponent of delegitimizing Israel internationally, who lives in self imposed exile in France. The incident at Swarthmore  also comes at a time when two academic associations in the US, Asian American Studies and Council of the American Studies Association endorsed resolutions calling for boycott of Israel universities akin to  similar  efforts in the UK and EU higher education professional groups. These developments are  the focus of two articles, “Going Rogue” in the Inside Higher Ed blog of The Chronicle of High Education and another  in The Jewish Press by  US Correspondent, Lori Lowenthal Marcus, “Hillel CEO: You can’t use our name if reject Zionism”.

Swarthmore is not unlike other campuses in that the student groups have virtual autonomy from national affiliations, supported by local endowments and student activity fees.

We have written about these episodes  at colleges and universities across the US.  Professor Tammi-Rossman Benjamin at UC Santa Cruz went on a national speaking tour in 2012 to raise attention to the problem. We continually addressed the problems of the Olive Tree Initiative at UC Irvine and other major California campuses. We witnessed the indictment and conviction of 11 members of the combined UC Irvine/Riverside Muslim Student Association chapters on charges of conspiring to deny the free speech of former Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren in February 2010.

Watch this brief video of UC Santa Cruz lecturer Rossman –Benjamin’s presentation at Congregation Ahavath Torah in Stoughton, Massachusetts in 2012.

The current kerfuffle between HI’s Fingerhut and the Hillel Swarthmore chapter arose when the later published a series of rebuttals last weekend  concerning the latter’s Open Hillel resolution in defiance of new standards adopted by HI. The Inside Higher Ed  blog noted:

The student board at Swarthmore College’s Hillel chapter has unanimously passed a resolution saying it will not abide by the international Jewish student organization’s ban on hosting anti-Israel speakers.

Declaring itself an “Open Hillel,” in an allusion to a broader movement against Hillel guidelines on campus-based Israel activities, the Swarthmore chapter resolved that it will “host and partner with any speaker at the discretion of the board, regardless of Hillel International’s Israel guidelines.”

The president of Hillel International has responded with a rebuke, describing the chapter’s position as “not acceptable” and saying that no organization that uses Hillel’s name can choose to violate its guidelines. Those guidelines stipulate that Hillel chapters will not partner with or host organizations or speakers that deny Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, or that seek to “delegitimize, demonize, or apply a double standard to Israel,” or that support the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel

The premise of the Swarthmore Hillel chapter resolution was:

That Hillel International’s rules have prevented campus chapters from cooperating with groups such as Breaking the Silence and Jewish Voice for Peace, and asserts that Hillel, “while purporting to support all Jewish Campus Life, presents a monolithic face pertaining to Zionism that does not accurately reflect the diverse opinions of young American Jews.”

Swarthmore sophomore Hillel student leader Wolfsun offered an olive branch via email to Fingerhut saying:

Although we stand by our resolution and our editorial, we look forward to a productive and fruitful dialogue with both you and with Hillel of Greater Philadelphia.

Fingerhut in his letter to the Swarthmore chapter noted Rabbi Hillel’s famed dictum “If I am not for myself then who a am I?” saying:

We here at Hillel international hold firm to his legacy. We encourage debate and dissent, but we draw the line at hosting groups who would deny the right of the State of Israel to exist. We will stand with Israel, the democratic, open, pluralistic home of the Jewish people. On that fundamental principle, we are unwavering.

Given our exposure to problems on US campuses over a decade, we applaud what Fingerhut at HI is doing.  We presume that he has the backing of the principal funder of Hillel International programs, the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation of Tulsa, Oklahoma.  Let us hope Fingerhut’s arrival as President of Hillel International isn’t too late to reign in anti-Zionist efforts like the Swarthmore Open Hillel initiative on many US college campuses.

A tip of the chapeaus to Judy Block and Lori Lowenthal Marcus.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review.

Charlie Crist’s Horrible Track Record Speaks For Itself

Charlie Crist is running his campaign on a mountain of lies and failures. He has continued to campaign on the same politics and policies that he once claimed to be against — is it really that surprising that his campaign manager quit before he even started?

Although Crist got into office by claiming to be a tax-cutter, he has been anything but that. His “Accelerate Florida” stimulus plan cost $28.8 billion — and what does he really have to show for it? All that Crist really succeeded at doing was accelerating Florida into debt…

Moreover, “Accelerate Florida” is extremely similar to Obama’s “Shovel-Ready” Stimulus (and of course, we all know the president’s stimulus was nothing but “shovel ready” and it did nothing to help the unemployment rate.) The Associated Press reported that, “A federal spending surge of more than $20 billion for roads and bridges in President Barack Obama’s first stimulus has had no effect on local unemployment rates, raising questions about his argument for billions more to address an ‘urgent need to accelerate job growth.’”

Another massive failure of Crist’s? His “Back To Work” program, which was funded with stimulus money. Results did not even come close to meeting Crist’s goals for the program.

As reported by The Brandenton Herald, “Florida’s Back to Work Program hasn’t quite worked as envisioned. At first, the government’s pledge to pick up at least 80 percent of salary and training costs for certain lower-income workers lured thousands of employers. Florida was poised to receive about $126 million in federal stimulus dollars to pay for some 14,000 new jobs lined up in the private sector… But with the funding spigot set to close as soon as today, the results did not come close to meeting those goals: Employers statewide filled only 5,500 of 13,787 jobs approved for funding over the past six months. Nearly 8,300 jobs have been left vacant, with employers either unable to find suitable candidates or backing away from promised jobs because of the still-shaky economy.”

Crist continued to spend ineffective dollars, despite attacking democrats for raising taxes during his campaign. In fact, Crist raised taxes and fees by $2.2 billion in 2009 alone.

Even other democrats blasted Crist for his irresponsible spending. Rep. Ron Saunders (D-Key West) said, “We’re not complaining that they raised taxes. We’re complaining that they chose to raise them on the average Floridian.”

Bottom line: Crist left Floridians in debt and out-of-work. 832,000 individuals lost jobs and Florida’s debt increased by 23% under Crist.

And now he says he will raise taxes again if elected governor.

It seems that as Crist’s horrible track record and lies catch up with him, his campaign is beginning to crash. Floridians aren’t buying what Crist is selling.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Shark Tank.

Ronald Reagan was the TEA Party!

Newly re-elected Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) on CNN’s Jake Tapper show stated, “I’m a conservative. I’ve governed as a conservative in this state, and I think that’s led to some people disagreeing with me in our state, because it’s generally a left-of-center, blue state.”

But is Christie truly a conservative?

Republicans, like Christie, often quote Ronald Reagan when speaking about conservatism. In September 2011 Christie spoke at the Reagan Library, his topic was “Real American Exceptionalism“. Christie focused on Ronald Reagan’s stand against striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Christie said, “The air traffic controllers, in violation of their contracts, went on strike.  President Reagan ordered them back to work, making clear that those who refused would be fired. In the end, thousands refused, and thousands were fired. I cite this incident not as a parable of labor relations but as a parable of principle. Ronald Reagan was a man who said what he meant and meant what he said. Those who thought he was bluffing were sadly mistaken.  Reagan’s demand was not an empty political play; it was leadership, pure and simple.”

“We tend to still understand foreign policy as something designed by officials in the State Department and carried out by ambassadors and others overseas. And to some extent it is. But one of the most powerful forms of foreign policy is the example we set. This is where it is instructive to harken back to Ronald Reagan and the PATCO affair. President Reagan’s willingness to articulate a determined stand and then carry it out at home sent the signal that the occupant of the Oval Office was someone who could be predicted to stand by his friends and stand up to his adversaries. If President Reagan would do that at home, leaders around the world realized that he would do it abroad as well.  Principle would not stop at the water’s edge,” noted Christie.

Reagan’s policies were based upon in what has become known as his “three legged stool”. Some call them the “Three Pillars of Conservatism”.

Kevin Price from Renew America writes, “If you know of Ronald Reagan, you are likely to be aware of his ‘three legged stool.’ Reagan developed a success formula to build winning coalitions that was as simple as it was brilliant. A sample of that simplicity and one of the hallmarks of Reagan’s policies was his ‘three legged stool.’ Reagan’s policies were built on three ideas; free enterprise, strong defense, and pro-family social policies. He chose these three because they, of course, reflected his own values, but he also realized that each of these ideas have enormous appeal on their own.”

Reagan was a man of principle, true conservatives are as well. Compromise on matters of principle is foreign to conservatives. Conservatives intuitively know that compromise on principles is the art of losing slowly.

J. Matt Barber from Christian News Today in his column “The Complete Conservative” writes, “I recently attended the Ronald Reagan Centennial Celebration hosted by the Republican Party of Virginia. It was co-sponsored by, among others, the Ronald Reagan Institute for Conservative Leadership. Michael Reagan, the oldest child of the man widely considered our greatest modern president, was the keynote speaker. Mr. Reagan said something that I think concisely sums up the core values shared by the ragtag millions who comprise the Tea Party movement. ‘People often ask me if Ronald Reagan would have supported the Tea Party,” he said. ‘Ronald Reagan was the Tea Party’.”

Speculation about who is the frontrunner for in the 2016 presidential Republican primaries has begun. The media always frames the Republican selection process as a need to run as a conservative in order to win the primary but run as a moderate in order to win the White House. That strategy was unsuccessful for both John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Price wrote, “Today, the common cry from economic conservatives is that they are the only ones with a message that matters to the voting public. After 40 years of Roe vs. Wade, we have two generations who only know a country with abortion on demand, they argue. Secondly, many conservatives have grown suspicious of ‘the military’ leg. They believe that just as the government has gotten suspicious in its domestic spending, it has also lost its bearings when it comes to defense and has found itself being internationalists with muscle. Essentially, ‘the three legged stool’ is being replaced by a pogo stick. A single area of interest and concern — the economy, being the springboard for political success.”

Price concludes, “The reality is the ‘three legged stool’ tripled the reasons why one would vote Republican. If the GOP provides the only means to protect traditional families, Christian conservatives will support it, regardless of the other legs of the stool. I think the same can be [said] of the other parts of a coalition that made the Republican Party very successful. If the stool is dead, the fortunes of the party may be also.”

Has the GOP adopted a “pogo stick” as the only path for political success? If so, losses as far as the eye can see may occur, as they did in Virginia, a state that could have elected the conservative Ken Cuccinelli.

Barry Goldwater wrote, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

It not the economy stupid, its the three legged stool!

RELATED COLUMNS: 

Tea party peeved with GOP over governor races, says Ken Cuccinelli was robbed

Christie Sued on His Victory Day

 McConnell Debt Plan: Press Release Conservatism

The Republican Establishment Lost Virginia

Look to Cruz, Not Christie

Has there been a “redistribution of political power” in America?

There is a growing sense among Americans that political power has shifted away from the people. City and county governments, school boards and state legislatures are losing political power while the federal government becomes more powerful politically. Just ask any of your locally elected officials about the rules and regulations coming from “on high”.

Many believe there has been a redistribution of political power in the United States.

Gallup in December 2011 found, “Americans’ concerns about the threat of big government continue to dwarf those about big business and big labor, and by an even larger margin now than in March 2009. The 64% of Americans who say big government will be the biggest threat to the country is just one percentage point shy of the record high, while the 26% who say big business is down from the 32% recorded during the recession. Relatively few name big labor as the greatest threat.”

This fear led to the creation of the TEA Party in 2008 and Occupy Movement in 2011. Organizations like the Oath Keepers, 912 Project and the Tenth Amendment movement are expanding. Coincidently, there are growing numbers of lawsuits by and against states involving the federal government.

The redistribution of political power has caused an explosion of internet bloggers such as the Drudge Report, Huffington Post, Breitbart.com, ProPublica and Watchdog Wire. A growing Fifth estate, revealing the secret inner workings of the federal government, includes the likes of WikiLeaks, Project Veritas and a growing number of whistleblowers.

Milton Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom wrote, “Economic power can be widely dispersed. There is no law of conservation which forces the growth of new centers of economic strength at the expense of existing centers. Political power, on the other hand, is more difficult to decentralize. There can be numerous small independent governments. But it is far more difficult to maintain numerous equipotent small centers of political power in a single large government than it is to have numerous centers of economic strength in a single large economy.”

Friedman noted, “There can be many millionaires in one large economy. But can there be more than one really outstanding leader, one person on whom the energies and enthusiasms of his country – men are centered?”

Friedman stated, “If the central government gains power, it is likely to be at the expense of local governments. There seems to be something like a fixed total of political power to be distributed. Consequently, if economic power is joined to political power, concentration seems almost inevitable.”

“On the other hand, if economic power is kept in separate hands from political power, it can serve as a check and counter to political power,” wrote Friedman.

To prove his point Friedman used a hypothetical example to reinforce his point on how the market works to preserve political freedom. In Capitalism and Freedom he wrote:

“One feature of a free society is surely the freedom of individuals to advocate and propagandize openly for a radical change in the structure of society – so long as the advocacy is restricted to persuasion and does not include the use of force or other forms of coercion. It is a mark of the political freedom of a capitalist society that men can openly advocate and work for socialism. Equally, political freedom in a socialist society would require that men be free to advocate for the introduction of capitalism.”

But how can the freedom to advocate for capitalism be preserved and protected in a social society? That is the question many believe the US is facing.

The answer: In order for men to advocate for or against anything, they first must “be able to earn a living”.

The more men are able to earn a living the more free they are to advocate. However, in socialist societies all jobs are under direct control of the political authorities. Friedman states, “It would be an act of self-denial … for a socialist government to permit employees to advocate policies directly contrary to official doctrine.” Hence the growing concern about fewer working and more of those who are working are filling part time jobs.

The more jobs are controlled by political authorities the less freedom. History tells us so. So when a politician says his role is to “create jobs” beware.

Obama Morphs Mandela

It will be difficult for Obama to be the center of attention when he attends the memorial of Nelson Mandela. Former Presidents Clinton and Bush will be there as well.

They have some things in common. Both were the first black president of their nation. Mandela was a communist and Obama is a communist. Both were sharply critical of the war in Iraq. Both regarded Israel as illegitimate.

Mandela evolved into a man who avoided recriminations against the wrongs perpetrated by his jailers and the system of Apartheid imposed on South Africa’s black majority. Obama never forgets or forgives anything he regards as criticism. Neither was, nor is a saint, but sainthood of a sort is being given Mandela in the wake of his death. Obama is more likely to suffer former President Carter’s fate.

No doubt we shall see his handlers—if not himself—put on the mantle of Mandela with copious comparisons. On word of Mandela’s death, the mainstream media launched itself into an orgy of encomiums, praising him for enduring 27 years in prison, but not mentioning that he was there as an agitator for the violent overthrow of the government; one that had lost any moral authority to remain in power. International opposition to that government eventually led to his release and the transition to his being elected to govern.

Most certainly Mandela suffered much during his long imprisonment. One can find little or no comparable suffering on the part of Obama who seems to have glided through a life whose official version bears little relation to what has since become known. He has kept his paper trail under lock and key, but there are some discrepancies that include his claim of being a “foreign student” at one point.

Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President.

The effort to benefit from any comparisons with Mandela put in mind his early campaign and election efforts in which a clear line was drawn between Obama and Abraham Lincoln. Both of course came from Illinois political scene. When Obama announced his intention to seek the Democrat nomination on February 10, 2007 he did so on the steps of the capitol in Springfield. On the way to his inauguration, he pointedly took a train to Washington, D.C. imitating Lincoln’s trip. He was sworn in on the bible Lincoln used.

Obama’s efforts to borrow from Lincoln’s greatness have fallen far short of his aspirations.

While Obama, in his official role, meets with leaders of other nations throughout the world, the general consensus seems to be that he is not held in much esteem and, with justification, not trusted by some.

One wonders who he sees when he looks in the mirror. Is it a world class basketball player who, but for fate, did not make it to the Chicago Bulls? Is it a crooner like the many famed singers he has welcomed to the White House? Recently he let it be known he will stay on in Washington, D.C. after his second term ends and revealed that his dream job after that would be as host of ESPN’s Sportscenter Top 10 list.

We can be confident that he will continue to morph from one identity to another and equally confident that, like any confidence man, he will convince the gullible that he is indeed the recipient of Lincoln’s and Mandela’s greatness.

(c) Alan Caruba, 2013

AFP-FL Calls Out 3 GOP Senators for Poor Votes in New Ad Campaign

Today, the Florida Chapter of Americans for Prosperity (AFP-FL) launched a new effort in Florida Senate districts 2, 5 and 28 aimed at educating voters in those districts of their elected official’s poor votes on key common-sense reforms and economic freedom-related issues during the 2013 session. The multifaceted campaign will employ direct mail and television and social media ads against Sens. Charlie Dean, Greg Evers, and Nancy Detert, and it will run through the end of November.

“These three senators voted to give taxpayer-funded handouts to billionaires, opposed giving parents the power to turn around failing schools, and voted to kill common-sense reform of the antiquated Florida pension plan-reforms that would have protected and honored the contracts of everyone currently in the system while protecting Florida’s taxpayers moving forward. These are issues that conservatives in their districts care about and they need to know that it was their own senator that let them down,” said AFP-FL State Director Slade O’Brien. “We intend to make it very clear that when AFP issues a ‘key vote’ on a specific issue, we mean business. We mean it when we say we’ll educate their constituents back home on the outcome of those votes.”

AFP-FL developed and has been advocating a common-sense reform agenda called Five for Florida. The plan would make taxes fairer; help end cronyism and the overwhelming influence of special interests; bring more accountability and transparency to government; require fiscal responsibility; expand competition and choice in education; eliminate unnecessary government burdens on businesses; and make Florida the most attractive state in the nation for both businesses and families.

O’Brien continued, “Polling has shown that the policies outlined in our Five for Florida plan are supported by a majority of Republicans, Independents and Democrats alike.  With the public growing ever more disgusted with the mess that is Washington, DC, there’s no better time for the Florida Legislature to restore the public’s faith in government by passing these common sense reforms.”

View the television ads below:

Senator Charles S. Dean, Sr., District 5.

Senator Nancy Detert, Florida District 28:

Senator Greg Evers, Florida District 2:

ABOUT AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY – FLORIDA

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a nationwide organization of citizen-leaders committed to advancing every individual’s right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP believes reducing the size and intrusiveness of government is the best way to promote individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans. For more information, visit www.americansforprosperity.org.

Under Charlie Crist Florida’s tax burden got worse and salaries dropped

On January 4, 2011, Governor Rick Scott stated at his inauguration, “If the conditions Florida offers aren’t the best, businesses go elsewhere. What does it take to create that favorable business climate? Florida has to offer the best chance for financial success. Not a guarantee – just the best chance. Three forces markedly reduce that chance for success—taxation…regulation…and litigation. Together those three form ‘The Axis of Unemployment’. Left unchecked they choke off productive activity.”

Governor Scott since his election has focused on bringing/expanding business and helping create jobs in the sunshine state with his “What’s Working Today” initiative. Scott has also worked to reduce the tax burden on residents via his “Its Your Money” campaign. The Governor recently announced his plans to cut taxes and fees for Florida families by $500 million in his proposed 2014 budget. Governor Scott took a tour across the state to listen to Floridians discuss taxes and fees they want to see reduced to help Florida families and job creators.

Governor Scott succeeded Governor Charlie Crist, a fellow Republican, who decided to run for the US Senate in 2010. Former Governor Crist was elected in November 2006, inaugurated January 2007 and served until January 2011. Crist is running for Governor against Governor Scott but this time as a Democrat.

Crist inherited a different economy than did Scott from his predecessor. Under former Governor Charlie Crist, Floridians saw their individual tax burden increase and average salary decrease.

The Tax Foundation has published an estimate of the combined state-local tax burden shouldered by the residents of each of the 50 states. The Tax Foundation website states, “The goal is to focus not on the tax collec­tors but on the taxpayers. That is, we answer the question: What percentage of their income are the residents of this state paying in state and local taxes?”

According to the Tax Foundation for Florida the answers are:

  • In 2006 Florida was ranked 42nd lowest by the Tax foundation with a state/local tax rate of 8.5%, per capita taxes paid to the state of $2,482, per capita taxes paid to other states of $1,288, a total state and local per capita taxes paid of $3,771 and average income of $44,340. (In 2006 the average national tax rate was 9.6% and an average national salary $41,526.)
  • In 2010 Florida was ranked 27th lowest with a state/local tax rate of 9.3%, per capita taxes paid to the state of $2,621, per capita taxes paid to other states of $1,107, a total state and local per capita taxes paid of $3,728 and average income of $40,053. (In 2006 the average national tax rate was 9.9% and an average national salary $41,146.)

NOTE: Click on the link to read the Tax Foundation Background Paper No. 65, “2010 Annual State-Local Tax Burden Rankings.”

The Huffington Post reports, “In a web video [below] entitled “Tell Me How I Can Help,” he referred to himself as “the people’s governor,” saying that only voters can “end this nonsense and get us back to common sense.”

HufPo notes, “A recent poll by the Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling found Crist ahead by 12 points over incumbent Gov. Rick Scott (R). But the Orlando Sentinel cautioned that the survey was “laughably too early to mean jack.”

Will Crist run on his record as the former Governor, or run away from it?

You can bet Republicans relish the chance to remember all those things Crist didn’t do while governor. Here is Governor Scott’s first 2014 campaign video:

EDITORS NOTE: There are currently twenty-three active candidates running for Governor according to the Florida Division of Elections.

It’s War: GOP establishment goes after TEA Party, TEA Party Goes RINO hunting

There are multiple reports that “establishment” Republicans are going after those who do not think like them. It is also reported that the TEA Party is targeting the eighty-seven house Republicans who voted on October 16th to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling. Republican members of the Florida delegation in Congress Vern Buchanan (co-Chair of the delegation), Gus Bilirakis, Ander Crenshaw, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Daniel Webster voted with Democrats to end the government shutdown.

How will this impact Florida elections in 2014? Only the primaries will tell.

Breitbart’s Matthew Boyle reports, “The National Republican Senate Committee, the GOP campaign arm responsible for Senate elections, has decided to use its political power to block consulting firm Jamestown Associates from receiving political work from GOP candidates or incumbents. Jamestown’s “sin” is working with the Senate Conservative Fund, an organization that supports conservative candidates for the US Senate.”

“Jamestown Associates has done work with the Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF), a conservative group largely responsible for the elections of Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rand Paul (R-KY), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Pat Toomey (R-PA), and Ron Johnson (R-WI), among others. Former Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), who left the U.S. Senate last year to become the president of the Heritage Foundation, founded SCF,” notes Boyle.

Paul Bedard from the Washington Examiner writes, “Tea Party leaders Monday announced plans to hunt down the 87 House Republicans who recently voted to reopen the government, fund Obamacare and raise the debt ceiling, and demand they return donations from conservatives. They’ve dubbed their prey “RINOs” — Republicans in name only — an intra-party slur conservatives have for liberal Republicans.”

“These RINOs have let the American people down and it is time for us to get our money back,” said Dan Backer, Treasurer of the Tea Party Leadership Fund, which is leading the new effort. They created a special website where anybody can ask for their refund back. “We want our money back, and you should ask for yours back too, from any RINO who voted to fund Obamacare,” he added.

The same group recently launched PrimaryTraitors.com to rally support for primaries against the 87.

Watchdog Wire contributor Mary Kay Ruppel writes, “Republicans are fond of calling themselves conservatives when running for office. Once elected they tend to do something other than what they promised.  Republicans talk about having a ‘big tent’, but as of late that big tent excludes conservative groups and individuals such as Libertarians and members of the TEA Party.”

Abraham Lincoln stated, “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free.” The Republican House of Representatives appears to be divided.

Former Arizona Senator and candidate for President Barry Goldwater wrote, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

The war is on for the heart and soul of the Republican party of Florida. Who wins can determine the future elections in the sunshine state in 2014  and the nation in 2016.

Below is the petition to TEA Party supporters urging action against the five Florida lawmakers (courtesy of the Washington Examiner).

Dear 87 House RINOs: You don’t deserve my money, GIVE IT BACK!

We believed in them. We believed they, like us, saw our nation’s finances careening out of control and were committed to doing something about it. We believed they realized this president has added more to our national debt than all previous presidents combined. We thought even if we can’t stop ObamaCare now, we at least could stop digging the holes even deeper.

But the RINOs who joined forces with liberal Democrats to raise the debt limit and end the shutdown let us down. They took our money and our hopes for smaller government, and they abused them. We were raised to believe people delivered when they took money for something. But these traitors to the cause took the money, then delivered a vote for bigger government, more taxes, more spending, more government dependence, more human misery.

It’s time we take action. RINOs, we need you out of our party, out of Congress, out of any position where you even pretend to hold public trust. We’ll take care of the “out of Congress” part come election day, but what we need now is our money back. We need a refund. We need a RINO refund because we didn’t get what we thought we were supporting … not by a long shot.

It is the honorable thing to do. Have they any honor left?

Is a Libertarian Party in Florida’s future?

Click on the image to read the full report.

Debra Caso, a Florida resident and member of Freedom Advocates, in an email writes, “It is time to look at our political choices a little more closely. Principle over Party and issues we can agree on across the board. Are you better off today than you were 16 years ago? If you work for the government you probably are richer but your rights have been radically attacked by the R and D party. Candidates start at the local level and they go right up to Congress!  Congress has failed America. RD Party is 2 sides of the same coin, we need a second party.”

Caso is energized because of the 2013 American Values Survey: In Search of Libertarians in America published by the Public Religion Research Institute on October 30th.

So is Alex Snitker from the 1787 Radio Network. In his column “There Are 2,595,586 libertarians In Florida” Snitker writes, “In Florida, there is only one way for a political party to reach major party status. That is [by] having 5% of registered voters be registered in your party. In the 2013 American Values Survey, “In the Search of Libertarians” a clear path was laid on how the Libertarian Party of Florida can achieve major party status in our state. There are 11,798,121 registered voters in Florida. If this poll is correct this means that there are 2,595,586 libertarian or libertarian leaning voters in Florida. For the Libertarian Party of Florida to reach major party status we need 589,907 to be registered Libertarians.”

For a larger view click on the image.

The 2013 American Values Survey presents an interesting picture of the political landscape in the United States.

The Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) states, “According to a newly developed Libertarian Orientation Scale, less than 1-in-10 (7%) Americans are consistent libertarians, and an additional 15% lean libertarian. At the other end of the spectrum, an equal number of Americans are consistent communalists (7%), and an additional 17% lean communalist. A majority (54%) of Americans have a mixed ideological profile, falling in between libertarian and communalist orientations.”

“Compared to the general population, libertarians are significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic white, male, and young. Nearly all libertarians are non-Hispanic whites (94%), more than two-thirds (68%) are men, and more than 6-in-10 (62%) are under the age of 50,” reports PRRI.

PRRI found, “Generally speaking, libertarians are more opposed than white evangelical Protestants, those affiliated with the Tea Party, and Republicans overall to government involvement across a range of economic policies, such as raising the minimum wage, Obamacare, and increasing environmental protections.”

For a larger view click on the image.

The PRRI survey found that “Unlike economic questions, on which libertarians are generally aligned with other conservative constituencies, libertarians have a more distinct profile on social issues.”

  • Nearly 6-in-10 (57%) libertarians oppose making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion, a proportion identical to the general population. By contrast, strong majorities of Republicans overall (58%), Americans affiliated with the Tea Party (58%), and white evangelical Protestants (68%) favor making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion.
  • Seven-in-ten (70%) libertarians favor allowing doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to help terminally ill patients end their lives. Americans who identify with the Tea Party are closely divided on this question (49% favor, 51% oppose). By contrast, strong majorities of Republicans (58%) and white evangelical Protestants (70%) oppose this policy.
  • More than 7-in-10 (71%) libertarians favor legalizing marijuana. By contrast, approximately 6-in-10 Republicans (61%) and Tea Party members (59%), and nearly 7-in-10 (69%) white evangelical Protestants, oppose legalizing marijuana.
  • Unlike most other social issues, libertarians remain socially conservative on same-sex marriage. While a majority (59%) of libertarians oppose same-sex marriage, they are significantly less opposed than Republicans overall (67%) and than other conservative-leaning groups such as Tea Party members (73%) and white evangelical Protestants (80%).

A majority (53%) of libertarian voters say they always vote in primary elections, a rate comparable to white evangelical Protestant voters (48%) and Republican voters overall (50%) but significantly lower than the participation rate among Tea Party voters (62%).

As the 2014 election cycle begins calls for a third party tend to grow. Will there be a Libertarian Party in Florida? Time will tell.

Why did the Florida delegation vote to stuff the Constitution in the wastebasket?

On October 16, 2013 the majority of the Florida delegation voted to pass the US Senate Budget Agreement. Senator Bill Nelson voted for the agreement and Senator Marco Rubio voted against it. The US House delegation vote on the agreement was 16 for, 10 against and one abstention. The US House vote breakdown is as follows:

Democrats — Brown, Y; Castor, Y; Deutch, Y; Frankel, Y; Garcia, Y; Grayson, Y; Hastings, Y; Murphy, Y; Wasserman Schultz, Y; Wilson, Y.

Republicans — Bilirakis, Y; Buchanan, Y; Crenshaw, Y; DeSantis, N; Diaz-Balart, Y; Mica, N; Miller, N; Nugent, N; Posey, N; Radel, N; Rooney, N; Ros-Lehtinen, Y; Ross, N; Southerland, N; Webster, Y; Yoho, N; Young, X.

The Florida Congressional delegation is lead by Rep. Vern Buchanan (R – FL District 16) and Rep. Alcee Hastings (D – FL District 20).

The immediate impact of passage of the US Senate Budget Agreement was Florida Blue dropped 300,000 Floridians “whose policies the health insurer says aren’t sufficiently comprehensive under the health care overhaul.” There is a longer term impact of the agreement that may have greater consequences in the sunshine state and on Floridians. It is Section 1002 of the Agreement titled “Default Prevention” known as the ‘McConnell rule”. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) leads the Republican minority in the US Senate and first introduced this rule to raise the debt ceiling in 2011, the last time the national debt became a point of contention in Congress. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wants to make the McConnell rule permanent.

The McConnell rule allows for the President to send a letter to Congress announcing his intent to raise the debt ceiling. The Congress will then consider his request, debate it and vote on a “joint resolution” to “disapprove” the request. There is only one problem. “It would then take a two-thirds majority of Congress to override the president’s increases, just as it would to override a presidential veto,” notes Michael Dorstewitz from BizPac Review.

Betsy McCaughey from the American Spectator writes:

Sunday [October 20th] on Meet the Press, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York announced he will propose legislation to permanently take control of the debt limit away from Congress and give it to the president. It’s a dictator’s dream come true. The framers of the U.S. Constitution gave Congress alone power to borrow, tax, and decide how public revenues are spent. They wanted to prevent a president from spending excessively and saddling the public with huge debts. That’s what the despotic kings of Europe had done.

Article 1 Sect. 8 states that ‘Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes … to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general welfare of the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.’ Schumer’s proposal stuffs the Constitution in the waste basket. It would allow the president to raise the debt ceiling, subject only to a two-thirds vote of disapproval by both houses of Congress. That’s no more constitutional than allowing the president to impose whatever taxes he wants, unless two-thirds of both houses disapprove.

The greater threat to the sunshine state and every Floridian is the future cost of servicing the debt.

McCaughey writes, “The average rate paid for government obligations is a tiny 1.98%, a third of what it was in 2000. When the rates go up, as they inevitably will, servicing the debt could claim 30% or 40% of tax revenues instead of the current 10%. Republican opposition is probably sufficient to stop Schumer’s bill. Nevertheless, these persistent attempts to elude congressional control over borrowing signal a fundamental problem. Though members of Congress take an oath to uphold the Constitution, they don’t mean it.”

Why would sixteen of the members of Congress from Florida want to stuff the Constitution in the waste basket? Why would they take an oath only to break it?

According to McCaughey, “Schumer claims his proposal will protect against a debt default when Congress and the president disagree.” That is exactly why Representative Buchanan voted in favor of the McConnell Rule. Buchanan in a press release stated, “Jeopardizing the full faith and credit of the United States by defaulting on our obligations was not an option. There is no question that we need to reduce spending and balance the budget, but not by degrading America’s credit rating and destroying our credibility.”

McCaughey concludes, “It’s a dangerous remedy. It plays into what President Obama apparently aspires to do — govern by edict. As he has said numerous times, when Congress won’t go along with what he wants, he will get it done on his own. Our system of checks and balances was designed to protect us from such executive overreach.”

Perhaps those who voted in favor of the McConnell Rule are more worried about reelection than their sworn Constitutional duties and responsibilities.

FL Rep. Grayson: Did you know that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, spoke at Ku Klux Klan rallies?

For a larger view click on the image. Image courtesy of Dave Leventhal.

Florida Representative Alan Grayson (D – FL District 6) invoked the image of a burning cross in a fundraising email. The intent of his email was to discredit the TEA Party of Florida and its affiliates. In using this image of a burning cross perhaps Rep. Grayson does not know nor understand the history of the Ku Klux Klan?

Here are some facts about who really created and supported the Ku Klux Klan.

In 1926, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a guest speaker at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Silverlake, New Jersey. Sanger wrote in her biography, “Eventually the lights were switched on, the audience seated itself, and I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak. Never before had I looked into a sea of faces like these. I was sure that if I uttered one word, such as abortion, outside the usual vocabulary of these women they would go off into hysteria. And so my address that night had to be in the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand. In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered. The conversation went on and on, and when we were finally through it was too late to return to New York.”

Sanger was a proponent of Eugenics, the racial cleansing of American society. In Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12, Sanger wrote, “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

According to Wikipedia:

From the mid-1870s on in the Deep South, violence rose. In Mississippi, Louisiana, the Carolinas and Florida especially, the Democratic Party relied on paramilitary “White Line” groups such as the White Camelia to terrorize, intimidate and assassinate African American and white Republicans in an organized drive to regain power. In Mississippi, it was the Red Shirts; in Louisiana, the White League that were paramilitary groups carrying out goals of the Democratic Party to suppress black voting. Insurgents targeted politically active African Americans and unleashed violence in general community intimidation. Grant’s desire to keep Ohio in the Republican aisle and his attorney general’s maneuvering led to a failure to support the Mississippi governor with Federal troops. The campaign of terror worked. In Yazoo County, for instance, with a Negro population of 12,000, only seven votes were cast for Republicans. In 1875, Democrats swept into power in the state legislature.

Once Democrats regained power in Mississippi, Democrats in other states adopted the Mississippi Plan to control the election of 1876, using informal armed militias to assassinate political leaders, hunt down community members, intimidate and turn away voters, effectively suppressing African American suffrage and civil rights. In state after state, Democrats swept back to power.From 1868 to 1876, most years had 50–100 lynchings.

White Democrats passed laws and constitutional amendments making voter registration more complicated, to further exclude black voters from the polls.

Bob Unruh of World Net Daily, in his column “KKK’s 1st targets were Republicans” reports, “The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats. An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.”

“The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbuilders and published in his book “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White,” which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem,” writes Barton.

It appears Rep. Grayson and Democrats with the help of the IRS are again targeting those who oppose them and big government. Invoking the burning cross is in character especially for those who believe in supremacism.

The below video is the full text of Margaret Sanger’s autobiographical recollections on addressing the Ku Klux Klan: