Posts

Obama declares November 4th a National Day of Quarantine

President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order today making November 4, 2014 a National Day of Quarantine for those Americans who are most at risk of contracting the Ebola virus.

“You cannot get Ebola through casual contact like sitting next to someone on a bus,” the President said in a press conference shortly after signing the Executive Order. “However you can catch it while waiting in line to vote.”

The Executive Order only applies to registered Republicans who are currently less likely to be receiving government provided healthcare and are therefore more susceptible to catching Ebola.

The quarantine will go into effect at midnight on November 3rd and will last until the polls close on November 4th. Republicans will be allowed to move freely throughout society so long as they do not come with 1000 feet of a polling booth. Many government agencies have been well armed over the past six years and will be mobilized on election day to enforce the quarantine.

Before leaving for a relaxing round of golf, the President concluded his press conference by reassuring the American people that they will have a safe Election Day. “Although we have had our disagreements, I more than anyone want Republicans to survive. Perhaps not as a political party, but as the taxpayers of our great nation.”

GOP Selling Out on Homosexuality: Carl DeMaio Target of “Tactical Vote”

Speaker Boehner to hold fundraiser Saturday for ‘proud gay” candidate who backs homosexual “marriage” and abortion rights. San Diego Pro-Family Coalition Urges ‘Defensive Tactical Vote’ Against Carl DeMaio, Openly Homosexual Activist Republican Congressional Candidate.

Carl DeMaio (right) with his homosexual love, Johnathan Hale.

Carl DeMaio (right) with his homosexual love, Johnathan Hale.

Folks, the internecine war in the Republican Party between social conservatives and libertarians who want to abandon abortion and homosexuality as major issues in the Party is bubbling to the surface. The following is an open letter signed by some leading Christian pro-life and pro-family advocates in San Diego–most notably pastor Jim Garlow, who led the victorious 2008 campaign for California’s Proposition 8 ballot initiative defending marriage. The letter urges concerned  San Diego Christians to cast a “tactical vote” against openly homosexual Republican congressional candidate Carl DeMaio, who supports homosexuality-based “marriage” and abortion rights. DeMaio’s campaign TV ad declaring himself a “proud gay American” who eschews “divisive social agendas” (even as he embraces them) is below [more analysis follows beneath video]:

All across America, GOP leaders are walking away from or downplaying the Party’s principled pro-family and pro-life platform. Their assumption is that this will help the Party win “moderate” votes and hence elections–a plan that didn’t work out so well for 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney (who, among other dubious stances, came out for open homosexuals in the Boy Scouts). The message from GOP elites in Washington is loud and clear: social issues are a drag on the Party; ignore them to win. But few Republican big shots seem to consider this relevant political question: how many social conservatives will walk away from the GOP or simply not vote–or be far less energized to volunteer for and fund a given GOP campaign–than they would be had a well-rounded social conservative been nominated?

This is precisely what is happening in San Diego. [See this Barbwire story to learn how the San Diego GOP endorsed and favored DeMaio in the Republican primary.]

Speaker of the House John Boehner will be raising funds for DeMaio Saturday. This piece in The Hill newspaper describes the GOP’s posture of backing homosexual candidates:

Last December, Boehner shot down calls for the NRCC [National Republican Congressional Committee] to abandon gay GOP candidates, arguing the party needed to make better inroads with gays, women and minorities following the party’s poor showing in the 2012 election.

Through his various fundraising committees, Boehner has donated the maximum $14,000 to both DeMaio and [openly homosexual GOP Massachusetts congressional candidate Richard] Tisei this cycle, records show. The NRCC also is spending big in those races, pouring $2.3 million to help DeMaio in his bid to unseat freshman Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.). It’s spending another $1 million to prop up Tisei’s campaign against Democratic nominee Seth Moulton, who ousted Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.) in the primary.

“Our decisions on the Republican nominees we support will not be based on race, gender or sexual orientation, but will be based on the strength of their candidacy and their ability to defeat Democrats,” NRCC spokesman Ian Prior said.

Morally and spiritually speaking, the GOP’s new openness to homosexuality and abortion tears at the soul of principled Christians who otherwise would be naturally inclined to vote Republican. These are moral Truth voters whose first allegiance is to God–and who are grieved to watch a Party that claims to be “pro-family” and pro-God tolerate–and then champion–candidates espousing social evils like sodomy-based “marriage” and abortion-on-demand. God does not support Republican-backed homosexuality any more than He does the common Democratic variety. Sin is sin.

[See this recent speech by Gov. Mike Huckabee assailing the GOP abandonment of traditional marriage as an issue.]

From FOX News icon Brit Hume prematurely and perhaps wishfully (as a loyal Republican drinking the Kool-aid) declaring this week that the same-sex “marriage” issue is over as a political issue–to Michigan’s Republican Speaker of the House Jase Bolger accepting $50,000 from “gay” activist financier Tim Gill, the GOP’s capitulation on homosexuality is accelerating. AFTAH is non-partisan, so we do not get involved in elections. But we do report trends, and the GOP trend of watering down or abandoning key moral principles–and selling its soul for “gay”-friendly campaign cash–has the very real potential to drive millions of people of faith from the Party. – Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH.org; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera

Open letter reprinted from “Republicans & Independents for Scott Peters“:

Defensive Tactical Voting: Which candidate will do the least harm?

As you prepare to vote: 

Christian conservatives face a moral dilemma in a key San Diego election race.

We know we have a clear choice in voting between the candidates when one of the candidates stands in opposition on issues relevant to the Christian community: life, marriage, religious freedom… Obviously we vote for the candidate who is in-line with biblically based values.

But how should we vote when both candidates share virtually the same views, and stand in opposition to those values?

Some people choose to simply abstain from voting, out of frustration with both candidates.  However, staying at home on Election Day might provide the margin of victory for a candidate who will do far greater damage and harm to society.

Such a race, we believe, calls for a different type of strategy when voting. Rather than sitting out the election, and potentially allowing a candidate who will cause great damage to win an election, we suggest a strategy that we call “Defensive Tactical Voting.”

What is Defensive Tactical Voting? Simply this: voting for a candidate who, while doing some damage to society, will do less damage than the other candidate(s) on the ballot. And who will provide a greater opportunity for defeat in a future election. We are aware of the fact that this strategy cannot always be applied broadly, but only to specific races.

An example of such an election is the 52nd Congressional District in San Diego, CA. Two candidates are running: Incumbent Democrat Scott Peters, and Republican Carl DeMaio.   Both candidates are pro-abortion and pro-same sex marriage. Both candidates are liberal and “progressive.” Yet one of these candidates will do far more damage to the moral fabric of our society than the other.

That candidate: the Republican candidate, Carl DeMaio.

Why is Carl DeMaio so damaging as a potential Congressman?

Here are a few reasons:

DeMaio is an avowed LGBTQ activist (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning).

The LGBTQ movement believes in a genderless society, where God’s order of male and female is denied. Their goal is much greater than that. It is to impose their views upon us, with the intent of abolishing our rights to freedom of religious conscience, coercing us to affirm homosexual practice and to forever alter the historic, natural definition of marriage. Allow us to be clear, in court cases all over America, it is now overwhelmingly evident that religious liberty and the radical homosexual agenda can not co-exist. Authentic biblical believers are losing their right to the first amendment expression whenever the homosexual agenda gets its way.

DeMaio has made it very clear that if he were elected, he would cater to the LGBTQ activists. Here is a newspaper interview comment from Carl DeMaio: “When I’m elected mayor, I will be one of the highest ranking LGBT officials in the nation. And the highest ranking Republican LGBT official. While my focus will be on fiscal and economic reform in San Diego, I also recognize the opportunity and obligation to serve as a role model for the LGBT community. We are currently evaluating several organizations and efforts to define the best way for me to serve as a role model.” Gay San Diego, Sept 7, 2012

Carl DeMaio is young, with a charismatic personality. If Carl DeMaio were elected to Congress, those within the GOP who desire to destroy historic one-man, one-woman marriage, and those who desire to destroy life in the womb, would likely attempt to increase DeMaio’s influence and stature within the Republican Party – becoming the poster child for the emerging left wing of the GOP. And as an incumbent, he would be virtually impossible to defeat.

But perhaps of greater danger is the fact that his rise in the Party would contribute greatly to a seismic shift: a loss of basic moral and family values in the Republican Party platform.  DeMaio will actively advocate a platform where foundational moral and family issues would essentially be removed from discussion, looking virtually identical to those planks in the Democrat platform.

Peters wants to change the direction of our country through his Party. DeMaio wants to change the country and his Party entirely. If DeMaio is elected, he will do so. And he will leave us as biblical Christians without a political home.

If you want further proof of DeMaio’s desire to remake the Republican Party, go directly to the San Diego Gay and Lesbian News, which is published by Johnathan Hale, DeMaio’s homosexual partner. (Yes, you read that right, DeMaio’s partner publishes the homosexual news for San Diego.) In this article DeMaio makes his intentions clear.

Please understand that our concerns lie not with Mr. DeMaio’s personal issues with same-sex attraction, but with his activism geared towards changing core values that protect life, the family and religious freedom.

In other words, those who hold to the sanctity of human life, the sanctity of family (meaning a biblical marriage, and two parent, one man-one woman, father and mother families), and the freedom to exercise religious conscience, would no longer have an active voice in American government.

DeMaio is a member of the Republican Party. Carl DeMaio, however, does not endorse the platform of the Republican Party–particularly the pro-life and pro-marriage planks of that platform.

A vote for Democrat Scott Peters will send a message to the Republican Party: “Defend your Party platform and its conservative values, and return to promoting and endorsing candidates who vocally support the entire platform. If you do not, we will keep voting for the opposition, and you will keep loosing elections. ”

Consider this: if you abstain from voting, that is a one vote (-1) difference. However, if you do not vote for DeMaio, but rather vote for Peters, that is a 2 vote (-1, +1) difference.  Your vote for Peters could make all the difference. (Please note that we understand that some will be unable to cast a vote for either candidate, and we are not asking you to violate your conscience before the Lord.)

In the 52nd Congressional District of San Diego, we encourage a vote for Democrat Scott Peters. Why? Not because he stands for our values – he does not.  We are supporting a vote for Scott Peters because he will do less damage to our nation then will his opponent:  Carl DeMaio. And will allow us an opportunity to correct the situarion in two years.

As a sidenote, we would urge fellow Republicans and Independents in Massachusetts and Oregon to vote for the Democrat opponents of the two Republican candidates, who likewise oppose the Republican Platform. They are: Democrat Seth Moulton, rather than Republican Richard Tisei, (MA 6); and Democrat Jeff Merkley of Oregon, rather than US Senate Republican candidate Monica Wehby.

Please join this movement, in order to keep the candidate who could do far more damage, Carl DeMaio, out of Washington. Consider voting for Scott Peters in the November election. While many of us do not align with Scott Peters politically, we align even less, morally and ethically, with Carl DeMaio.

God bless you and your family,

God bless America,

As a growing movement, additional names will be added in the near future.  If you would like your name added to the list below. please email info@RepublicansandIndependentsforScottPeters.com

Kamal Alsawaf
Dean Broyles
Dr . Gary Cass
Chris Clark
Frank Dowse
Dr. Jim Garlow
Pat Hansen
Penny Harrington
Jim Holman
Frank Kacer
Attorney Charles Limandri
Kathryn A. Marler
Timmerie Millington
Mary Moran
Claire Reiss
Allyson Smith
John Waring
Anne Wigdahl Subia
Amy Vance

The persons listed above have signed this letter as individuals, not representing any organization, nor are they working in association with any other organization. They are private citizens who jointly signed this letter when they discovered they shared a common view. You are invited to join them by emailing going to:  info@RepublicansAndIndependentsForScottPeters.com and asking for your name to be added to the list.

RELATED ARTICLE: Huckabee Threatens To Leave GOP Over Gay Marriage, Abortion

Those 9/11 Terror Attack Predictions

As we close in on the 13th anniversary of the infamous 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the media is full of predictions about attacks that will occur.

A September 2nd Debka File, an Israeli news agency, reported “Credible information has reached Saudi, British and Australian agencies that two al Qaeda branches—ISIS in Iraq and Syria and AQAP at its base in Yemen—have wrapped up plans to roll out coordinated terrorist spectaculars around the 13th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. According to Debka File’s counterterrorism sources, they are preparing to strike simultaneously in the Middle East and a West European city. Next, they will go for U.S. targets in the Middle East and Europe.”

This report and other factors incline me to believe there will not be a major attack somewhere in the U.S. on what is now officially called “Patriot Day.”  There could be a lone wolf attack along the lines of Major Hassan’s 2009 “workplace violence” at Fort Hood or the Boston Marathon bombing, but the threats being made by the Islamic State and other elements of al Qaeda, while intended to raise fears in America, are likely to be manifested in the Middle East. American outlets there will be on full alert for sure.

The Islamic State, while now wealthy, well equipped militarily, and attracting every lunatic Islamist and wannabe terrorist, is facing an increasingly united group of Middle East nations that have put old enemies like Iran and Saudi Arabia on the same page together. Iran has dispatched troops to Iraq to support the Kurds. When other Middle Eastern nations finally screw up enough courage to actually do something they will wage a war on ISIS in the interest of self-defense, a powerful motive.

As for al Qaeda’s war on America, it was declared in 1996 by the late, unlamented Osama bin Laden and, other than 9/11, it has done little to follow up on that dramatic sneak attack except for a few failed efforts. The U.S. responded by bombing the hell out of Afghanistan and our troops there have been attacking the Taliban ever since. Obama says he will pull them out in 2015. Given events in Iraq, that is a very bad idea.

The Department of Homeland Security has been on alert ever since it was created shortly after 9/11. This is not to say that the U.S. doesn’t need more on-the-ground intelligence penetration of al Qaeda and its affiliates. Indeed, DHS and other government agencies don’t know the whereabouts of several thousand foreign students who are supposed to be at our colleges and universities. They likely do not know who else among those with easy access to the nation is a potential terrorist.

So, yes, that could mean I am very wrong and that 9/11 would be a day for a whole series of attacks for much the same reason our consulate in Libya was attacked that day in 2012. The Benghazi cover-up has been falling apart ever since. The lie that it was caused by a video grows more absurd and obscene very day.

The Israelis have made a far greater and more successful effort than us to infiltrate their enemy’s organizations. Hamas was so rattled by the effectiveness of the Israeli bombing of sites where its rockets were stored and fired from, as well as the killing of a number of its leaders, that they made a public display of executing a number of people they accused of being Israeli spies, whether they were or not. The likelihood was that they were Gazans who had spoken out against Hamas.

After breaking a number of ceasefires, Hamas, running out of any support, accepted the most recent one and Israel thereafter announced the annexation of more West Bank territory for its settlements and, no doubt, for militarization to protect against further attacks. The Israelis know how to deal with their enemies, to prepare, and to take action rather than issue empty threats.

There have even been a number of small events by American Muslims speaking out against barbarity of the Islamic State and the threats leveled at the U.S. That is a hopeful sign, but it needs to increase in numbers and volume. The vast silence of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world is an offense to humanity.

The Arabs of the Middle East are forever making dramatic threats, but they have a record of doing little. When Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq, he waged a war against Iran that ended inconclusively and then invaded Kuwait and was defeated by a U.S. coalition. When he continued to make threats the U.S. invaded again and deposed him.

What followed was an effort in several Middle Eastern nations to rid themselves of their despots. This occurred in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. Only Egypt, after a brief encounter with a Muslim Brotherhood government, rallied again with a military coup that led to the election of a new military leader. The Brotherhood has been banned! Libya is a failed state that has been taken over by Islamic militants. Tunisia has a new constitution as of January and numerous political parties. Its government is battling local militias.

Iraq is in near failure as it tries to unite its Shiite and Sunni factions in a functioning government. Much of the nation has been taken over by the Islamic State in the same fashion as northern Syria whose civil war has killed 190,000 and driven over a million out as refugees in Lebanon, Jordan and anywhere else they could flee. Who has put troops into Iraq to resist the Islamic State? The Iranians!

One threat the President of the United States does not appear to have taken seriously is an Iran with a nuclear weapon and the intercontinental missiles to deliver it. Both Israel and Saudi Arabia are far more aware of the danger this poses and in all likelihood Israel will conclude it must destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and military installations.

The United States has lost virtually all the influence it once had in the Middle East, even if it came from the barrel of a gun. Our Secretary of State, John Kerry, is held in low regard by both the Israelis and Arabs. The President, Kerry, and Hillary Clinton keep insisting that “climate change” is the greatest threat to mankind.

If President Obama does not engage in the destruction—not “containment”—of the Islamic State, its oil wealth will enable it to become a major threat in the Middle East and beyond, including us. They have demonstrated no restraint on their use of violence and pose a threat comparable or even greater than the Nazi regime of the last century.

Will there be attack or attacks in the U.S. on 9/11? We all wish we know the answer, but we don’t.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Will Republicans pick up a U.S. Senate Seat in Delaware? Kevin Wade thinks so!

Kevin Wade

Kevin Wade, Republican primary candidate for the U.S. Senate in Delaware.

With the primary races over and growing attention at the local, state and national levels will be on Tuesday, November 4, 2014. The real battle nationally is in the U.S. Senate. Millions will be poured into races to retain or obtain control of that body.

However, there is one key Republican U.S. Senate primary remaining – in Delaware.

On September 9th, 2014 the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate will be held in “The First State.” This race will take on greater interest as the Delaware primary approaches. Kevin Wade, a self-made business man, believes he can take and put the Delaware U.S. Senate seat solidly in the “R” column.

Historically the Delaware U.S. Senate seat is won with approximately 150,000 total votes. The race in November will likely hinge on about 8,000 voters changing their voting pattern on the General Election Day. It is projected that the Republican turnout will be 10% higher and 10% lower for the Democrats. That leaves 8,000 voters to be convinced to swing  this U.S. Senate Republican on November 4th.

This is the seat formerly held by now Vice President Joe Biden. That alone must have Delaware Republicans energized.

According to Wade, “It is all in reach. I don’t understand the fascination with ‘big state’ races at the national level. My vote in the U.S. Senate would count as much as California’s U.S. Senator. The yield on a donor dollar and volunteer hour is so much higher in this small voting universe in Delaware.”

Kevin Wade on the Two Americas:

Recently Wade was at the Gaza Frontier with Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers. Wade notes, “No civilian was closer. I am a trusted friend and have trusted friends there. Because of this trust, senior IDF officers closed their eyes to my presence in the forward area. The soldiers I met were returning from house-to-house fighting inside Gaza. Others were going across the fence line to enter combat. It was and remains a tough fight. To be clear I was not in combat; just nearby. One explosion was so close I felt the blast wave and my ears rang.”

“The soldiers asked me to break bread with them at their late night mess. Another night I was invited to join their prayer circle for the traditional Soldiers Prayer before they entered combat. I went to Israel, when under attack by Hamas rockets, to form a personal impression. On my last night in Israel I was invited to be a guest on I24 TV, Israel’s “CNN” for a live worldwide broadcast about the conditions there. Thirty minutes later I was face down in a roadside ditch due to another rocket attack. I saw the two rockets rise up with a fiery tail from a field to my right,” recalls Wade.

Watch this short video of Wade’s visit to Israel:

To learn more about Kevin Wade visit WadeforUSSenate.com.

Looking Ahead to November

In an October 30, 2008 campaign rally on the campus of my beloved alma mater, the University of Missouri, Barack Obama uttered words that will define him for all time.  He said:

 “After decades of broken politics in Washington, and eight years of failed policies from George W. Bush, and 21 months of a campaign that’s taken us from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunshine of California, we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.  In five days, you can turn the page on policies that put greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street.  In five days, you can choose policies that invest in our middle class, and create new jobs, and grow this economy, so that everyone has a chance to succeed, not just the CEO, but the secretary and janitor, not just the factory owner, but the men and women on the factory floor.  In five days, you can put an end to the politics that would divide a nation just to win an election, that tries to pit region against region, and city against town, and Republican against Democrat, that asks — asks us to fear at a time when we need to hope.”

It was all a big lie.  Since entering the White House on January 20, 2009, Barack Obama has done the exact opposite of everything he promised in that tirade.  And now, after five years, six months, and twelve days of his destructive leadership, the only hope the American people are left with is the hope that the next two years, five months, and nineteen days will pass quickly.

His idea of fundamentally transforming the United States was a clear miscalculation on his part.  What he clearly fails to understand is that the American people yearn not for transformation, but for fundamental improvement in the quality of our government and common sense solutions to a host of difficult and intractable problems.  They were not looking for someone to fundamentally transform what has been the greatest, most prosperous nation on Earth.

He leaves in his wake a longer list of failures than any president in history.  His most significant “contribution” to the nation is the all but certain reality that he will be forever remembered  as the worst president in American history.  No previous president, of either party, has been responsible for the kind of self-inflicted damage that Obama has done to his own party.

During his first two years in office his greatest accomplishment was passage of the Affordable Care Act, taking control of seventeen percent of the nation’s economy, while running up more national debt and creating more joblessness than all of his predecessors combined.  As a result, the 2010 general elections proved to be an unmitigated disaster for the Democrat Party.

In that election, Republicans reversed their losses of 2006 and 2008, gaining a net sixty-three seats in the House of Representatives.  It was the greatest loss of House seats experienced by either party in more than seventy years.  In the Senate, Republicans gained a net of six seats, expanding their minority from forty-one to forty-seven seats.  Republicans took control of twenty-nine of the fifty governorships, while gaining a total of 628 seats in the state legislatures.  The state legislative victories gave Republicans control of twenty-six state legislatures, making it possible for right-to-work legislation to be adopted in heavily unionized “rust belt” states such as Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

It was a whuppin’ of epic proportions, but it likely will pale in comparison to what awaits Democrats in November 2014.  With Obama’s job approval ratings bouncing around in the thirties and low forties and a long list of messy scandals that surpass the worst of the worst among “banana republic” dictators, there’s not much for Democrat candidates to run on.

In the 2014 Senate races, Democrats are forced to defend twenty-one seats to the Republicans fifteen.  Of the twenty-one Democrat seats, only eight can be seen as solidly Democratic, while fourteen of the fifteen Republican seats will almost certainly remain in Republican hands.  Most likely pickups of Democrat seats by Republicans are in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia.  Those six seats alone would give Republicans a simple majority of fifty-one seats in the Senate.

However, of the remaining fifteen Democratic seats, Republicans are within striking distance of capturing seats in Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Oregon.  Republicans are also looking forward to potential wins in Minnesota and Montana where incumbent Democrats Al Franken and John Walsh, respectively, have been devastated by charges of plagiarism.  The one seat currently held by Republicans that is in some doubt is the Georgia seat of Saxby Chambliss, where Republicans will face Michelle Nunn, daughter of the late senator Sam Nunn.

It is easy to see how Republicans could gain a total of ten seats, perhaps eleven or twelve if all of the “stars are in alignment” on Election Day.  But what is seldom mentioned by political prognosticators is the possible outcome of House races in the shadow of a highly unpopular president and a do-nothing Democrat-controlled Senate.

In the House of Representatives, Republicans now hold a thirty-three seat majority over Democrats, 234 to 201.  However, a cursory analysis of House races, using 2012 margins as a benchmark, it appears as if Republicans could pick up a total of nineteen Democratic seats in the states of Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.  Those nineteen seats would give the GOP a comfortable 253 to 182 vote majority in the House.

Taken together, those gains in the House and Senate would represent Obama’s worst nightmare, making his last two years in office a living hell and giving minority leader Nancy Pelosi the ever-shrinking minority that she so richly deserves.  And while some observers may consider my predictions to be overly optimistic, I would remind them of the likely impact of major increases in healthcare premiums to be announced by insurers during the month of October, just days before Barack Obama’s Waterloo; the federal court’s ruling that the Department of Justice must turn over documents relating to the Fast & Furious scandal; and the beginning of televised hearings by the Benghazi Select Committee, chaired by tough former prosecutor, Trey Gowdy (R-SC).  These are issues that Democrat own, lock-stock-and-barrel, but wish they didn’t.

The importance of the 2014 mid-term elections cannot be overstated.  Although Democrats have taken the United States far down the road to a European-style socialist state, there is still time to reverse that trend so long as our electorate is composed of a majority of working men and women, tax payers, and property owners.  We simply cannot allow Democrats to import an additional ten or twelve million voters across our southern border… illegal aliens that Democrats will herd into the voting booths as they did in 1996, when they sent hundreds of thousands of letters, over Bill Clinton’s signature, to illegal aliens in California granting them the right to vote in the November General Election.

Of course, all of this depends on the ability of Republicans to recognize that, on all of the most important issues of the day, the American people agree with core Republican principles by large majorities.  One would think that the Republican Senatorial Committee and the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee would be able to develop a long list of talking points that would totally disarm Democrat candidates.  But that is far from a certainty.  For example, Barack Obama, his Kool-Ade drinkers in Congress, and their lapdogs in the mainstream media maintain a constant drumbeat on issues such as immigration reform, charging that Obama is unable to deal with the hordes illegally crossing our southern border because he is forced to deal with a do-nothing Congress.

To date, I have yet to hear a single congressional Republican pose the question: what good is it for Congress to pass “comprehensive” immigration reform when we are saddled with an outlaw president who cannot be trusted to enforce the law… not even statutes that he, himself, has signed… and a Democrat-controlled Senate that refuses to consider any Republican bill?

Nor have I heard a single congressional Republican challenge the Democratic members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee as they turn the committee’s public hearings into IRS wrongdoing into a partisan political circus.  Not one Republican member has pointed out that most IRS employees are members of the 150,000-member National Treasury Employees Union… a union that gives nearly ninety-five percent of its PAC contributions to Democrats.  Is there really any doubt why Committee Democrats are so uncritical of their IRS benefactors?  The only person to make that connection publicly is Oklahoma attorney Cleeta Mitchell, who represents a number of conservative organizations targeted by the IRS.

It has become a cliché that congressional Republicans are so out of touch with Republican principles that they are often indistinguishable from Democrats.  It is exciting to contemplate what should happen in November, but given the poor quality of the Republican leadership and the meekness of the rank-and-file, the outcome is totally in doubt.  Left to their own devices, congressional Republicans can easily “screw up a one-car funeral.”

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of American Immigration Council and Shutterstock.

Voice & Exit 2014: Join us to celebrate “human flourishing”

Are you done with rubber chickens, cold hotels, and boring panels? FEE is a proud sponsor Voice & Exit 2014.

The event, to be held on June 21, 2014, in Austin, Texas, allows guests to explore ideas of “human flourishing.” Themes include:

  • Radical innovation
  • Opt-out culture
  • Entrepreneurship
  • Disruptive technology
  • Biohacking and personal optimization
  • Communities of the future (seasteading and startup cities)

Get tickets and make plans now to attend Voice & Exit 2014. Join FEE in celebrating ideas that could take us to the next stage of freedom, life meaning, and human well-being.

Use promo code “freedom” for a 10 percent discount. Student tickets are just $50.

Pardon My Paranoia

An organization, Patriots for America, is calling for millions of Americans to descend on Washington, D.C on May 16th for Operation American Spring whose purpose is to demand that President Obama and others in his administration be removed from office.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/Ddg7fYtdGUY[/youtube]

Among the rules of engagement set forth on their Internet site include (1) no weapons, no ammunition. “The Communist forces that control Washington, D.C. do not recognize the 2nd Amendment and have banned all weapons and ammunition from the district. Do not give them the opportunity to arrest you and prosecute you.” (2) Follow all rules of the road. (3) Comply with all constitutional requests of local authorities. And (4) travel in groups of four or greater.

Geoff Ross is identified as the senior chief of the organization that wants participants to be prepared to stay as long as it takes for Congress to take action. The event suggests that he and many supportive groups think the U.S. is at risk of losing its constitutional government so long as Barack Obama is President.

The worst possible scenario to the event would be if some element of the law enforcement authority is ordered to fire on the gathering, but I recall that in July 2008 presidential candidate Obama said that Americans could no longer “…continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

America does not need a civilian national security force.

We have the military whose job is to protect us against foreign invasion and we have state and local police authorities in our towns and cities to address riots and large protests. The force the President wants would exist solely to intimidate and control Americans who he deems his enemies.

What we do have in the wake of 9/11 is the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and it is not intended to be a military force although it does include the Coast Guard. On March 23, 2013, Capt. Terry M. Hestilow, U.S. Army retired, wrote to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) warning that DHS is preparing to go to war with the citizens of the United States.

“It is with gravest concern that I write to you today concerning the recent appropriation of weapons by the DHS that can only be understood as a bold threat of war by that agency, and the Obama administration, against the citizens of the United States of America.” He expressed his concerns over “recent purchases of almost 3,000 mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) armored personnel carriers, 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (with associated weapons), and other weapons systems.”

“One needs only look to the rise of Adolf Hitler,” wrote Capt. Hestilow, “and his associated DHS organizations, the SA and the SS, of 1932-1934, to see the outcome of allowing an agency of government this kind of control over the free citizens of a nation.”

In a February 5, 2014 article on Infowars.com, Kit Daniels reported that “The U.S. Postal Service is currently seeking companies that can provide “assorted small arms ammunition in the new future. The U.S. Postal Service joins the long list of non-military federal agencies purchasing large amounts of ammunition.”

What has a growing number of Americans concerned is this arming of government agencies we do not associate with the need to be heavily armed. “Since 2001, the U.S. Department of Education has been building a massive arsenal through purchases orchestrated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms” reported Daniels. “Back in July, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also purchased 72,000 rounds of 40 Smith and Wesson, following a 2012 purchase for 46,000 rounds of .40 S&W jacketed hollow point by the National Weather Service.”

One might assume that the DHS needs to be armed to some degree, but there is no logical reason for the Post Office, the Department of Education, and NOAA to be heavily armed. Reportedly DHS spent over $58 million to hire security details for just two Social Security offices in Maryland and $80 million for armed guards to protect government buildings in New York and more guards for federal facilities in Wisconsin and Minnesota. “Even the Environmental Protection Agency has its own SWAT teams conducting raids on peaceful Americans,” wrote Daniels.

DHS has been engaged in a program to provide military-style weapons and vehicles to local police forces around the nations.

My most profound fear, my paranoia, concerning the May 16 protest, despite its instructions to participants not be armed, is that some incident would escalate to a point where shots were exchanged. One can conceive of that serving as the reason to initiate an “emergency” proclamation and/or to declare martial law.

One gets the feeling that this government, under the direction of President Obama, is preparing for a national insurrection against his often lawless administration. The May 16 event would provide an excuse to initiate actions that would put us all under the gun.

I no longer believe “it can’t happen here.” We have a President who sees no reason to work with Congress and who recently “joked” that he can do whatever he wants.

I worry that members of our military and others would obey orders to impose governmental control to the extent that we might see widespread resistance by millions of armed Americans. I regard the surge in the purchase of weapons by private citizens during Obama’s terms in office as a reflection of the paranoia that I am feeling these days.

But is it paranoia? Or is it a reasonable assumption that a President who feels free to ignore the Constitution might have plans that do not include peaceful elections or his departure from the office?

© Alan Caruba, 2014

RELATED COLUMNS:

Americans rising up against government – USA Today

Unrest In Venezuela And Ukraine Coming To America?

Victory For Ukrainian Revolution

VIDEO: Yulia: ‘I Am A Ukrainian’

President’s Day 2014: Do you remember when Presidents Upheld the Law?

Rich Tucker from Heritage writes, “Today is known as ‘President’s Day,’ a three-day weekend retailers use to lend an air of Founding-era seriousness to their sales. But its legal name is Washington’s birthday—and how appropriate to reflect on a President who took his bearings from the Constitution while serving in office.”

George Washington “understood himself to be the President of a Republic in which the people, through their elected representatives in Congress, make laws,” Heritage’s David Azerrad writes. As the chief executive, Washington recognized that his constitutional charge to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” was a duty rather than an optional responsibility to exercise at will. Laws, no matter how unpopular, had to be upheld, so long, of course, as they were constitutional.

Perhaps no law was more despised in Washington’s time than the excise tax on whiskey. It fell especially hard on farmers on the frontier of Pennsylvania, for whom whiskey was the drink of choice and grain the most lucrative crop. Washington saw the farmers’ violent resistance to the tax—the so-called Whiskey Rebellion—as a direct threat to the rule of law.

If “the laws are to be so trampled upon with impunity,” Washington noted, “nothing but anarchy and confusion is to be expected hereafter.” The President’s response was therefore swift and forceful: He personally led more than 12,000 troops to western Pennsylvania and quashed the rebellion.

What a contrast to President Barack Obama’s “I can do whatever I want” attitude toward the rule of law. In light of Washington’s constitutional leadership, Obama’s dereliction of duty when it comes to enforcing Obamacare—today’s most unpopular law and the President’s namesake—is especially clear. The President has unilaterally made changes to the law that was passed by Congress.

7 times Obama did “do whatever I want” during his presidency

Other examples of the President’s selective enforcement of laws duly passed by Congress abound. Among those cited by legal experts Elizabeth Slattery and Andrew Kloster:

  • Abdicating the Administration’s duty to defend and enforce federal laws.
  • Gutting the work requirement from welfare reform.
  • Implementing the DREAM Act granting amnesty to some illegal immigrants by executive fiat.

See more Obama overreach

“We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need,” Obama announced last month.

It is inconceivable that such words would have ever come out of President Washington’s mouth. The current occupant of the White House may want to take some time today to read up on how our first and greatest President understood his role.

Read the Morning Bell and more en español every day at Heritage Libertad.

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.