If I wanted America to fail...

Specifically targeting Obama and his eco-statist cohorts among the modern Democrat Party, who conflate, manipulate and subvert every debate when it comes to energy and environmental issues, this magnificent video professes so much more about the overarching philosophy of statism and the tyranny it breeds. And perhaps this message could even extend to the statist-enabling establishment of the Right, whose man, like many of his endorsers, has both conceded and consented to one ploy after another before conveniently backpeddling. Of course he's not alone; and fortunate for us, not everyone with an (R) beside their name fell for it...but it's also worth noting that this overall campaign season reversal might not have even occurred but for conservatives railing against this scam over the past few years.


And speaking of the past, I might also remind viewers of another similar, and perhaps more powerful message that FreeMarketAmerica must have certainly taken as inspiration for their piece: the late Paul Harvey's 1965 Warning for a Nation 'If I were the Devil...'


(Here's a cleaner version in case you had a hard time hearing that one.)

So much truth and fruition in both of these astounding pieces.

Of the People...not the Party

The establishment's slobbering has many conservatives in a funk with the departure of the last conservative standing, and quite understandably so. I just had an interesting discussion this morning with a group about what things to consider, who to look at now, etc., and there are a lot of uncertainties to say the least. However, one thing is patently certain: principled conservatives have been abandoned by the Republican Party. And many are speaking out about it. Here's one such blog post entitled, 'Screw the GOP, They Don't Seem to Want My Vote Anyway', that although may not lead to the same conclusive platform and candidate for your persuasion (nor for mine), nonetheless speaks volumes towards a shared sentiment:

I'm done. I'm a lifelong Republican and I'm done. I've been a Republican since I was 6 and I saw Reagan speak on our old 13" black and white television set about freedom and about the evils of the Soviet Union, where I was born. I grew up listening to Reagan and I kind of always thought that he was what the Republican Party stood for. For individual liberty at home & abroad. "Moderates" like George H. W. Bush seemed like some sort of aberration to me, an exception to the conservative Republican rule. Looking back though, it's pretty clear that Ronald Reagan was the aberration. In 1988, instead of nominating the father of the Reagan tax cuts, Jack Kemp, the GOP nominated the anti-Israel squishy moderate George H. W. Bush. In 1996, instead of nominating the stalwart conservative Phil Gramm (lifetime ACU rating of 95) or the flat tax visionary Steve Forbes, the GOP nominated another squishy moderate, Bob Dole (lifetime ACU rating of only 82). 2000 was a joke as the establishment had pre-decided that W was going to be the nominee and he really didn't have any real opposition. W, the "compassionate conservative". We all know how that ended. Ballooning federal spending and even a new entitlement! It was so bad that even in his home state of Texas I heard of people say that he destroyed the Republican Party by governing the way he did.

Looking back before Reagan, I think the last Republican President I actually would have liked was Calvin Coolidge, who was elected in 1924, a whopping 88 years ago (even Reagan's 1980 election was a hell of along time ago, a whopping 32 years). So in 88 years, there have been a total of 2 Republican Presidents and only 3 nominees (add Barry Goldwater in 1964 to the mix) who believed in small government, free markets and individual liberty. Being a Republican who believes in those things seems to be a great way to torture yourself. You are constantly tempted into thinking "maybe this time" but more often than not they end up giving you someone you despise but feel you have to support as they are the lesser of two evils. Well, I am done supporting any sort of evil, lesser or otherwise. Alternating the Presidency between lesser evils and full-on evils are how we got into the mess we are in. When the Democrats are in charge, the size and scope of government is increased dramatically (except under Clinton, where he tried to nationalize healthcare but was stopped and then a Gingrich-led Republican Congress kept him in check) and when the Republicans are in charge, government also increases, albeit at a slower rate. We're now to the point where even if we cut all discretionary spending to zero, we will just be balancing the budget, thanks to all the promises of entitlements made in prior administrations (Mary Meeker has a great presentation on how screwed we really are).

Romney is just the last straw for me. I can't really say for certain what I agree with him on or exactly how he differs from how Obama has been governing (as George Soros said, "If it's between Obama and Romney, there isn't all that much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them"). He believes in the individual mandate as a way to reform healthcare despite it being an abrogation of individual liberty. He is going to raise taxes if elected President, he has said as much. I'm not even sure how his foreign policy would be different. So far, all I understand is that he would leave Afghanistan 3 months later than Obama and would only criticize Israel in private. Sure, I'm sure his decisions would be less bad than Obama, his regulations less over-reaching, but that is simply not enough for me. And the worst part of this whole process was that so many conservatives stood on the sidelines, not doing all that they could to keep a progressive from becoming the GOP nominee. Where was Sarah Palin's endorsement? Where was Jim DeMint's? Why weren't they out there campaigning, highlighting Romney's terrible record as Governor? The establishment had clearly decided on a candidate and these so-called iconoclasts didn't want to hurt their own careers. They just wanted to go along to get along. The conservative press was no better. They didn't want to hurt their future access to politicians and/or the White House.

That particular author then asks, "So what now?" to which he then explores his own route. But the crux of what he's said above, I do believe, speaks to the heart of conservatives' concerns. Here's a different, yet similar sentiment from a new friend, who after ruminating over the excitement as she was looking forward to the 2012 primaries, only to have those hopes dashed by the outcome that the two 'Government parties' have chosen for the People, and after exploring the innate similarities among both establishment wings, expresses a poignant message, as well as advice, for all conservatives to consider...

"The Conservatives have remained where they were, while holding on tightly to the Constitution but are having a hard time dealing with the shift of the (R) party. This has caused a great divide in the Conservative movement.

Conservatives are struggling to find their foot hold. Some are wandering around not knowing which way to go. Some are sticking with the (R) party, either because they do not understand what has happened or they never really were Conservative to begin with. It might come as a surprise to some but not every one understands their own views or understands which party they actually line up with. This actually takes deep thought in soul searching to figure out.Its not about what one might wish they were. Its more about who they are as a person. Personally, I spent long, mentally struggling hours just coming to terms with who I truly am as an American and where my views based on my own life, upbringing and experiences leave me. Its not an easy task I can assure you! Its one of the more daunting tasks I believe I've put myself through intentionally. But since I know who I am, where my views line up .. I have an unwavering political passion. Do I still struggle? Of course I do! I question myself and my views constantly. You have to remember that with time and experiences we ALL change. Its knowing how we are changed that makes all the difference in the world. I guess its like fact checking myself. What I have found is no matter how much I question myself or my views politically. I always end up back on track with my core Conservative beliefs. For me this is a good thing because its what I believe in.

If you are doing this, might I suggest not staying there so long that you lose yourself. Thats not your goal! My goal is to find my next path as should be yours. Then how will you deal with what you know about yourself and your views?

So for me, its like Ronald Reagan said "I didn't leave my party, my party left me." The (R) party slid so far left beyond my own reach that I can no longer associate my views with them.I can no longer be part of the (R) party as a Conservative. So I'm taking a different path. Something that I know is uncomfortable because its new but I understand also that its not new to me at all because I know who I am politically. I am a Conservative that believes in the nation our Founding Fathers gave to us, brave men and women died to preserve and a free nation I want to leave for my grand children.

Will the Conservative party be a strong party? I believe it will in time, once other Conservatives figure out what I have. Maybe in my lifetime and maybe not. I'm unsure since I have lived the better part of my life already. I just hope I can somehow make an impact for my grand childrens sake and they will follow my path in their own views. If we do not fight and take a stand to be who we are, then we are nothing at all of any use to our nation and preserving our most precious documents."

Yes, she and I both know that there is a Conservative Party, but you'll notice she purposefully uses a small 'p' to get the point across. Although, there's food for thought. But you can literally look out across the fruited plains and find multitudes more expressing similar sentiments.

It's time to let the establishment apparatchik know that this abandonment of principle for party loyalty and power grabs will no longer stand. Maybe Reagan and other great conservatives like him were exceptions to the rule, or rather the ruling class, but when he gave that truly historic 1975 speech to CPAC, calling for "a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors," drawing a line in the sand for conservatism, and unambiguously announcing to the establishment that "if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way," that was a call for conservatism to ascend and the establishment to fall away. We know now that those leeches have persisted, and that the memorable words that spawned a vibrant base have been abandoned by the second party. So although what comes next may be uncertain, it's quite clear that resilient, principled conservatives must stand together, against both establishments and the odds they've rolled out, and fight on! Whether that means switching candidates, encouraging someone else to step in, write-ins, finding a more appropriate platform to align with, whatever the call, don't be a victim to the establishment line that if you don't vote for Romney, you're voting for Obama. BULLSHIT! They can vote for their messiah. It is your right to vote your conscience and your conviction. This is the only way to resurrect a country of the People, by the People, for the People...not the Party, neither of them. God help us stand up.



(h/t: Faith Ntx, Malcolm Hunt, Bridget Blueskye)

No conservative in the WH this round

Well, crap. So, was he just waiting on Santorum to exit first?

FoxNews: Newt Gingrich plans to formally leave the Republican presidential race next Tuesday, senior campaign aides told Fox News, after struggling for months to turn around his sagging bid for the White House.

The former House speaker will "more than likely" endorse Mitt Romney when he makes his announcement to either suspend or end the campaign, a source said.

And so ends the push, through the official process anyway, for a conservative in the White House. Talk about a missed opportunity. Onward to replacing the left-wing progressive with a more moderate or 'right-of-center' version, so says the Republican establishment. Whether from Wilson to TR or spinning the template around from the latter Roosevelt to the prior, shuffling between the New Freedom, a Square Deal, a New Deal, or a Fair Deal, history certainly has a morbid sense of humor by returning us to Progressive Era politics. Tax it, regulate it, subsidize it...bigger, 'better' government.

ADDENDUM: Meet your inevitable nominee...
Cataloging Mitt Romney’s Lies, Does it Matter to You?
Romney Backs Obama's Student Loan Proposal, Rejects Rubio's Conservative Immigration Plan (not everyone would agree with the coinage of Rubio's plan as 'conservative')
When Saul Alinsky met George Romney (progressive roots?)
...and then there's that little thing that everyone keeps trying to sweep under the rug: Romneycare. Oh well, at least his hair can heal the sick and cause the lame to walk...

The Republican Establishment is on the move against you

I don't think anyone reading this blog has a problem recognizing the direction of the modern Democrat Party. It's march is forward into statism. One which starts with a soft tyranny, but ultimately, as history has proven time and time again, ends with a much harsh form, before its inevitable collapse (however, not before decimating its people). But for now, let's turn to the Republican Party, and in particular, the schism within.

It's no secret that the conservative base of the Republican Party once again, as has occurred multiple times throughout its inception, finds itself at odds with the powerfully entrenched establishment. This has boiled to a head in this election cycle with the search for a GOP presidential candidate who can redirect the nation's current misguided trajectory. Conservatism focuses on the reversal of destructive policies that affect our liberties, reinstituting first principles to control the reigns of government over party power grabs; while the moderation and compromise of the establishment takes a predictable approach of maintenance and reinstitution of power ahead of principled considerations. So, it would seem that at some moment in time, a breaking point might occur, and here's where what Levin talked about in Wednesday's monologue (the establishment's arm now reaching into the Senate elections) comes into a broader perspective on the overall campaign trail.

"Folks, the Republican Establishment is on the move against you. They're fighting Ted Cruz in Texas, oh yes. They're fighting Mourdock in Indiana...they're trying to defeat our candidates. And if we don't have more conservatives in the Senate, you're gonna have more Republican Big Government that you saw under George Bush, with all due respect, and you're going to be very disappointed. The Republican Party will go the way of the Whig Party eventually. But what worries me even more is where's the country gonna go? We don't need Dick Lugar anymore. We need an active, vibrant, confident, serious, consistent, conservative. And if we can't get that at the presidential level, we must get it at the congressional level."

Levin's saying what most of us already know, but I think it's important to note that he's one of the few talking about it and that I emphatically agree with him on this account. I honestly wish he'd continue to make this case at the presidential level while we still have a conservative in the running (Gingrich); but as with many, the establishment has seemingly achieved their commencing ruse that the presidential match is set with their preferred candidate (Romney). The only problem with giving up on that ballgame before it officially ends, is what comes next, because the establishment, similarly like the statists they enable (but with less vigor), never relent when it comes to seeking more power, attacking their shared threats (conservatives), and accelerating authoritarian growth, reaching further into every facet of our lives.

I still affirm that 'aligning with the lesser of two evils is still siding with evil'. And if we're prepared to align ourselves with the all-too-familiar corruptibility of the Republican Establishment, conceding to their guidance before our primary process is even over, before our convention in Tampa commences, over fear, doubt, any array of desperate emotions, for the sake of defeating the greater evil with the lesser of the two, as well as wipe the least conservative candidate's inconsistent record from our memories in a rush to crown a leader, we should not only expect to be deceived if the establishment pulls out a win in the presidential race, but prepare for much of the same to permeate throughout the congressional races, as the establishment's current move reveals. That march towards the cliff may decelerate to a slower trudge, but it will nonetheless continue. Thus, it's no overstatement to say that these are unwise predicaments of our own creation when walking among such foundational cracks and fissures as we face today.

So, I would just end with this message: Though many may have given up on the fight for a conservative in the White House (and good for you if you haven't!), these congressional races certainly can't be allowed to join the same fate. Will you at least remain vigilant in these congressional (and local) elections? For the sake of conservatism, our future generations and the Nation, don't allow the establishment and their allies to trample these as well. Say NO to Big Government, whether led by the Left or the Right.

Additional resources: theRightScoop, Politico

The $5 Trillion Man: historic debt

And it only took this historic President a mere 39 months...

CNSNews: In the 39 months since Barack Obama took the oath of office as president of the United States, the federal government’s debt has increased by $5,027,761,476,484.56.

Although he has served less than a term, Obama is now the first American president to see the federal government's debt increase by more than $5 trillion during his time in office.

The $5,027,761,476,484.56 that the debt has increased during Obama's presidency equals $16,043.39 for every one of the 313,385,295 people the Census Bureau now estimates live in the United States.

At the close of business on Jan. 20, 2009, the day Obama was inaugurated, the federal government’s debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08, according to the U.S. Treasury. By the close of business on April 16, 2012—as many Americans were working to finalize their 2011 tax returns to meet an April 17 filing deadline—the debt had reached $15,654,638,525,397.64.

'Out of the dark and into the light' my @$$! As Rush said today, "This is why there is a Tea Party. This president has rung up more debt than all previous presidents combined. And on the horizon we can now see, it's Greece, it's Spain, it is Europe."

So, will we learn or will we rinse and repeat, America?

A time for introspection

"If the Republican establishment is not careful, they are going to destroy themselves in the process of this campaign. We've never had a better chance to win than this." ~ El Rushbo

Following yesterday's news of Santorum's departure, I was privy to a number of discussion that unfortunately for the most part seemed to culminate into a disregard of Newt Gingrich's candidacy as the only conservative still in the race (primarily with unforgiving jeers of 'adulterer' that have little to do with our current quagmire) and a concession of far too many to the weakest, nonconservative, establishment candidate, Mitt Romney (including excuses for RomneyCare and the rest of his short, but disastrous gubernatorial record that reflect heavily upon our present path). White flags abound.

At that time, I made the statement to many friends that "Today, I am a conservative without a party." I meant it then, and I mean it now...only now I also question those who fold so swiftly in the fight against the establishment, yet insist that they are 'conservative'.

The body blows continued with calls of "time to face reality" and "Romney's the only one left" to a discouraged "we live to fight another day," and then came Levin's resigned message (from his website):

Rick Santorum has dropped out of the Republican primary and Mark says Newt needs to do the same because it is inevitable that Mitt Romney will be the nominee. It is now up to the conservatives to pull out the victory for Romney and it is up to Romney to appeal to them. The Republican Establishment has gotten their candidate, and it will be up to Romney to try and gather the conservative vote if he wants to have a chance at winning the Presidency. Mark gives advice to Romney: pick a solid conservative for Vice President and rebuild the Reagan coalition that he tore apart with his negative campaign ads.

There's so many contradictions and defeatism to address there between conservative conviction and establishment might that I don't even wish to begin exploring at this time. I can't seem to find the time nor energy to do so.

Just as I've become exhausted with constantly battling the establishment march, I tire of choosing between the 'lesser of two evils' every four years, as well as being asked to cast aside my conservative principle for party politics. So, what I do want to say at this time is that I've got a lot of thinking to do between now and November. My feeling at present is that of introspection, so perhaps my flow should temporarily subside a bit, and during this ebb, turn my attention towards my family, my faith and sharpen my mind and soul to tackle the next leg of this political chasm and current schism. This is most assuredly not 'Uncle', for I've never been known to keep my mouth closed for too long!

Gingrich invites Santorum supporters to join the conservative cause

Boston: Newt Gingrich praised Rick Santorum’s “remarkable campaign” Tuesday after the former Pennsylvania senator bowed out of the presidential race, and Gingrich invited Santorum’s supporters into his own camp.

“I am committed to staying in this race all the way to Tampa so that the conservative movement has a real choice,” Gingrich said in a statement. “I humbly ask Senator Santorum’s supporters to visit Newt.org to review my conservative record and join us as we bring these values to Tampa. We know well that only a conservative can protect life, defend the Constitution, restore jobs and growth and return to a balanced budget.”

Principled conservatives, anti-establishment warriors, Christian denominations, are you ready to surge? Or are you just going to hand this nomination over to the establishment that's enabled statism and allowed it to get this far out of control? For all of Newt's flaws, his conservative record far exceeds that of Mitt.

Check out the last conservative standing at Newt.org.

Santorum suspends presidential campaign

Damn.

TheFix: Rick Santorum will announce Tuesday that he is suspending his presidential campaign, all but bringing to a close the 2012 GOP presidential contest and formally handing the nomination to Mitt Romney, according to an official close to the campaign.

A new Washington Post/ABC News poll this week showed a majority of Republican-leaning Americans — 52 percent — said Santorum should stay in the campaign, while 43 percent said he should drop out.

And the establishment delights.

Blahous: Obamacare will add $340 billion to the deficit

I believe the CBO just warned us last month that Obamacare will cost us double the original estimate...now this?!

TheWashingtonPost: President Obama’s landmark health-care initiative, long touted as a means to control costs, will actually add more than $340 billion to the nation’s budget woes over the next decade, according to a new study by a Republican member of the board that oversees Medicare financing.

And what are they mad about? Obama approved the guy...

The study is set to be released Tuesday by Charles Blahous, a conservative policy analyst whom Obama approved in 2010 as the GOP trustee for Medicare and Social Security. His analysis challenges the conventional wisdom that the health-care law, which calls for an expensive expansion of coverage for the uninsured beginning in 2014, will nonetheless reduce deficits by raising taxes and cutting payments to Medicare providers.

But predictably, the Obama regime is livid when everything doesn't spin their way...

ABCNews: The White House has unleashed a torrent of criticism on a leading conservative economist – approved by President Obama in 2010 as a Republican trustee overseeing Medicare and Social Security finances — for concluding in a new study that the Affordable Care Act will add to the deficit instead of reduce it.

Charles Blahous, a former economic adviser to George W. Bush on retirement security issues and deputy director of the National Economic Council, says in a report released today that, contrary to other independent estimates, the health law will add $340 billion to the deficit.

I share Weasel Zippers' sentiment: "C’mon SCOTUS, overturn this pig."

Eric Holder, this is why we need Voter ID laws!

Busted!

Breitbart: In a shocking new video exclusive to Breitbart.com, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas demonstrates to the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, just why he should be concerned about lack of voter ID laws – by walking into Holder’s voting precinct and showing the world that anyone can obtain Eric Holder’s ballot. Literally.



"I'll be back Faster than you can say Furious." PRICELESS!

Rush: Why in the world is the IRS involved in enforcing ObamaCare?

Rush asked a great question today in response to this report:

TheHill: The Obama administration is quietly diverting roughly $500 million to the IRS to help implement the president’s healthcare law. The money is only part of the IRS’s total implementation spending, and it is being provided outside the normal appropriations process. The tax agency is responsible for several key provisions of the new law, including the unpopular individual mandate.



Yep, you all know why. But it's a tax...no, I mean it's a fee...err, a penalty...no, it's another reason for Big Government to seize more of your money, and it has nothing to do with health care.

It's not about providing everybody with health insurance. It's going to destroy the private sector health market. And if you think getting health insurance and treatment from the DMV is something you want to do, that's what you face here. This is not about that. It is about a way to tax people who don't have insurance and to tax the employers who don't provide coverage. This is about collecting money from people for health care who are not spending any money on health care. And that's why the IRS is there: To enforce these new taxes -- or fines or levies -- if you don't follow the rules and buy a policy. That's why the IRS is there. That's why this has nothing to do with health care. It's taxes and collection in 2,700 pages.

the REAL Unemployment Calculation Act

After another Friday shell game with the unemployment numbers -- as the labor force shrinks, the unemployment rate miraculously drops -- it's about time someone in Washington recognized it...

TheHill: A Republican lawmaker is intensifying his push for legislation that would change how the government measures the unemployment rate. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) intends to press GOP leaders to move his bill to include the number of individuals who gave up looking for work in the percentage of jobless claims.

Should the government measure unemployment with Hunter's figure, the unemployment rate would be higher than the current rate of approximately 8 percent... His one-page legislation, the REAL Unemployment Calculation Act, would require “the federal government [to] cite, as its official unemployment calculation, the figure that takes into account those who are no longer looking for work,” not only those individuals actively seeking jobs.

For example, the most recent unemployment rate released on Friday, at 8.2 percent unemployment, would be officially considered 9.6 percent, the so-called U-5 rate that was also released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

The measure would not require any additional numbers to be calculated; it would simply use a statistic that the BLS already calculates each month, alongside the so-called official unemployment rate and a handful of other stats.

The U-5 stat measures “total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force,” while the U-3 stat or the “official unemployment rate,” measures “total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force.”

(Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)

I'll take some transparency and accuracy for a change, over the fraudulence of the reported number, as well as the administration and media propaganda behind the deception.  But actually, the U6 is probably the most accurate!

Happy Easter!

CHRIST IS RISEN! He Is Risen Indeed! Alleluia!

Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you.” So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.” ~ Matthew 28:1-10

Hoping you and your family have a very joyous Easter!

Word of advice to Rubio

With all due respect to Marco Rubio, because I do really like the guy, "Shut up already!" All these GOP politicians and pundits are jockeying (and cheerleading) for Romney, who on his current course, is undeniably coming closer to clinching the nomination. But also undeniable is that we're not there yet. So don't proclaim to the other candidates that they must concede! On the contrary, now is the time that they must coalesce around conservative principles, values & ideas...and most wisely, a single individual if a truly conservative candidate desires the nomination.

Many aren't sold on Romney's candidacy, there's many more states who have yet had a voice in the primaries, and there's been nothing inevitable about this entire process (except for the establishment proclamations). Regardless, this is part of the primary process, and if it comes down to a floor fight at the convention, so be it! There's nothing to fear in following through with this process and choosing the nominee of the Republican majority (unless Romney and his surrogates' fears lie in a convention influenced by Republican delgates alone). Republicans will find a way to come together in the end, if for nothing else than to oust Obama, no matter the brevity preceding the general election.

But perhaps the most crucial questions: Why have a primary process at all, if the nominee is predetermined? Why not just allow the establishment every four years to dub their nominee and force him on the party? Who cares if the base likes him or not?

I don't think this posturing is going to help Romney's case...on the contrary, I think it's more likely to affect the perception of Rubio's integrity and charm (even if his pursuit is for the V.P. slot).

Hypocrisy on parade against Voter ID laws

Surprise! The DOJ and liberal groups that oppose voter ID laws require photo ID to enter their buildings. The hypocrisy on parade is astonishing...

HotAir: U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is currently blocking implementation of voter ID laws in South Carolina and Texas, claiming such measures are “unnecessary,” discriminatory and would make it harder for minorities to vote.

But if you’re planning to visit Holder’s office in Washington, D.C., you better bring a photo ID. The Department of Justice has two armed guards stationed outside its headquarters to check IDs of anyone who wants to enter — employees and visitors.

Holder’s politically motivated crusade against voter ID laws has the support of liberal advocacy organizations ranging from the Center for American Progress and Media Matters to the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the Advancement Project.

Each of these organizations has criticized photo identification for voting, yet they require it to enter their Washington, D.C., offices as well. There’s even a sign in the building of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: “ALL VISITORS MUST SHOW ID.”

Race hustlers march on

Here's more from our tolerant diversity leaders...NOT!

Marion Barry says 'get the Asians out of DC'.


Jesse Jackson still exploiting the Trayvon fallacy and encouraging black youth to vote...for who? You know who.


But don't count on the media to widely report on these issues...that goes against their contrived racial component. For instance, as Rush pointed out in today's opening monologue, look at how they've destroyed the 'white hispanic' George Zimmerman.



Funny how this racial component festers just in time for the reelection of our first black president, no? Nevermind his destructive Marxist policies. Nope, that's racist to talk about too. Folks, as an American People, we've surpassed the evil throes of slavery and racism; but these race peddlers, along with their willing media cohorts, all of whom are condoned by the current administration, are keeping reverse discrimination and the tension between ethnicities alive and well.

Rush: Obama's AP speech a "blatant appeal to the dumbest Americans"

I heard this topic across the talk show forums yesterday, so thought I'd share a favorite. Rush slammed Obama's economic speech given at that ridiculous AP lucheon on Tuesday, and in reference to his criticism of Ryan's budget, Rush said it was a "blatant appeal to the dumbest Americans." He's absolutely right.

"It is beneath the office of the presidency, but it is an appeal to the stupidest of our people...He's appealing to the absolute, most ignorant segment of our population, with this and with what he's doing with the Supreme Court, and the decision upcoming on his healthcare bill.

It is clear what he is doing, and it is clear what he thinks of this country. His reelection hinges on him being able to mobilize the ignorant, the shallow, the uninformed, the uneducated, the dumb and stupid. That is who he's appealing to.

Now how many of you think that there are a lot of those people in this country? Are there enough of them to win somebody the White House?"

Although Obama's 2012 campaign is a "stark contrast from this big messianic campaign from 2008," we have nonetheless sadly come to realize that if there were enough stupid people who have bought into the manipulative utopian mindset to get him into the White House the first time, there certainly are enough to incite into pulling for a second round.



Is ANYONE buying Obama's crap?! It's not Ryan's plan -- which actually makes cuts to federal spending over a pretty lengthy amount of time, but eventually get us on a better path -- that paints Obama's dystopian scene. On the contrary, it's the inevitable collapse that is certain, if we don't reign in spending, starting with Obama's budgetless direction.

ADDENDUM: Ryan had more than a few choice words for Obama's fearmongering...

Our Harvard Huey Long

Mark Levin has prominently shown us the many strands of utopian links between our current President and those held by such past presidential utopians as Wilson & Roosevelt, whose radical egalitarian actions we're still feeling today. But a few days ago he shared with us another of Obama's redistributive predecessors, Huey Long. And although more akin to mixture of Wilson and Roosevelt in tone (i.e., less conspicuous), Obama's language certainly has a lot in common with that old Louisiana kingfish.

Doesn't this from 1934...


(Or Levin's audio reference from Tuesday's show, via History Matters website.)

...sound eerily similar to our Harvard 'Huey' of modern times?

2001: "the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change"

(This was among his earliest political arguments tying the SCOTUS and civil rights together into a redistributive discussion. Here's Levin's comments back then on an extended portion of this interview.)

2008: "spread the wealth around"

(Again, Levin's comments back then.)

He also uses those similar local hypotheticals to enduce emotion, inciting class envy, to justify the promotion of wealth redistribution, whether it's Huey's 'barbeque' and numerical limitations on wealth, shared by Obama (somewhere between $200K & $$250K, depending on the month) or Barack's comparison of his wage to that of the 'waitress' for the 'roof over her head' and 'her kid to go to college' (they always USE the children).

2009: "those who are more fortunate are going to have to pay a little bit more" (i.e., 'tax the rich')


2011: "millionaires and billionaires"


2011: "fair share"


Now, although his latest attention lies between protecting his unlawful healthcare law from an unconstitutional ruling (and thus inciting a political struggle between the branches of gov't, which I may talk about later), lashing out at Republican budget proposals with none of his own, and promising the moon to gain reelection, the redistributive argument is infused within all of these instances. It's who they were (Wilson, Roosevelt, Long, and scores of others, past and present), just as it's who he is. And of course, the facts are always omitted for rhetoric and ideology...



And like Long, Obama is a promoter of redistributive utopianism...but also like Long, he denies his Marxist tendencies, even though they're patently obvious.

Predictably predictable

Robert Stacy McCain says everything about Tuesday's primary was predictably predictable, and maintains his concerns, like so many conservatives, for an exceedingly weak, yet deemed inevitable, frontrunner, and the media cheerleading behind him:

The outcome of Tuesday's primary in the Badger State was in some sense predictable, a repeat of the primaries Feb. 28 in Michigan and March 6 in Ohio: Santorum campaigned hard and came close, but was ultimately unable to overcome the Romney campaign's vast advantages. In the past 10 days, the former Massachusetts governor rolled out endorsements from Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson and Rep. Paul Ryan, as well as former President George H.W. Bush and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a Tea Party favorite who is almost every Republican's top pick for the vice-presidential nomination. And once more -- as in Michigan, Ohio, and other key states -- Romney's campaign and his allied "super PAC," Restore Our Future, unleashed an overwhelming flood of attack ads against Santorum. It is estimated that the pro-Romney forces spent more than $3 million on advertising in Wisconsin, outspending Santorum and his super PAC by 4-to-1.

This was predictable, based on previous precedents, as was the final result Tuesday: In a Republican primary with phenomenally low turnout, Romney won Wisconsin with 42 percent of the vote to 38 percent for Santorum. This four-point margin of victory, purchased at such a heavy price, was predictably hailed as a triumph that effectively clinched the nomination for Romney. Yet the winner of Tuesday's Wisconsin primary got about 200,000 fewer votes than the half-million Republicans who voted for Johnson in the state's 2010 Senate primary, the low turnout in this year's presidential primary an ominous indication of the tepid enthusiasm for Romney among grassroots conservatives. (Newt Gingrich did not even campaign in Wisconsin, but his 6 percent of the vote there was larger than Romney's margin of victory.) If Romney is indeed now the "inevitable" nominee, it is a status he has obtained by crushing conservative opposition in an astonishingly expensive and negative campaign: According to the Washington Post, Romney's super PAC has spent nearly $30 million on advertising, 91 percent of it on negative ads aimed at either Gingrich or Santorum. By some estimates, the Romney campaign is spending at a rate of more than $15 per vote, compared to less than $6 per vote for Santorum.

None of that was mentioned Tuesday night in the post-primary discussion on Fox News, which predictably cut off Rick Santorum's speech halfway through, and then predictably began discussing the campaign in terms of when Santorum would drop out and how Republicans could "coalesce" behind Romney who, the commentators declared, is now definitely the inevitable nominee. Karl Rove, Charles Krauthammer, Mary Katharine Ham, Stephen Hayes -- every voice on Fox News was singing the same predictable tune from the hymnal of inevitability. Santorum's supporters have been complaining for weeks about the transparent pro-Romney bias at Fox, and it was perhaps not entirely a coincidence that conservative columnist Michelle Malkin -- a Fox News contributor who endorsed Santorum in January -- chose Tuesday to link election coverage from MSNBC and CBS at her popular blog. The bandwagon psychology of the front-runner's argument, which has been gathering force ever since Romney's Jan. 31 victory in Florida, has nearly overwhelmed all rational resistance. Anyone who continues arguing against Romney's inevitability is increasingly viewed as a spoilsport, if not indeed a madman.

Can those in the establishment not see that this negative campaigning, along with the arrogant cheerleading, is turning off the party's conservative base? That's rhetorical, of course, because it's overabundant that they could give a damn about ticking off conservatives. However, it doesn't look so great for Republican votes in general...

A sort of cognitive dissonance is at work: Three months into the primary campaign, Romney has [only] gotten about 41 percent of Republican votes so far. According to projections by the Associated Press, however, Romney now has 655 delegates, which is 57 percent of the "magic number" of 1,144 needed to clinch the nomination at Tampa. Delegate-rich states that are home to millions of conservative voters are still weeks away from their primaries, including Indiana and North Carolina on May 8 and Texas on May 29. Yet such is the pressure now to unite Republicans behind Mitt's moderate banner that Tuesday night on Fox News, Krauthammer argued that Santorum should quit even before the April 24 primary in his home state of Pennsylvania.

That was perhaps predictable, too, because Krauthammer and the other Fox News panelists surely know that if Santorum can manage to win Pennsylvania and fight on into May, the inevitable Romney may not be as inevitable as some pundits have predicted. According to an analysis of Republican delegate math published Tuesday in the New Yorker, it is currently projected that Romney will complete the primary campaign just shy of the "magic number."

And although the establishment voices continue to speak towards ending the primary prematurely by attempting to push Santorum out of the race, Rick told supporters, "Pennsylvania and half the country have yet to be heard. We're here to make sure their voices will be heard in the next few months."

Santorum spent months campaigning on a shoestring budget in Iowa when there were no big crowds and no major media coverage, when his poll numbers were in single digits and nobody thought he could win. He won not only Iowa, but also Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Kansas, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana, to become the last man standing against Romney, who has always been the pre-emptive favorite to win the nomination. Anyone who thinks Santorum will quit now -- when he has three weeks to win over Republican voters in his home state of Pennsylvania, and thus keep his underdog campaign alive -- obviously doesn't know Rick Santorum very well. The key message of his speech Tuesday was therefore predictable: "It's time to go out there and fight."

ADDENDUM: Here's a similar sentiment shared by Stuart Rothenberg at Roll Call: "The bottom line, of course, is that nobody — not his critics and not his allies — really believes Mitt Romney."

Good luck, Republican Party

"...moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" ~ Barry Goldwater

Never have I felt so disgruntled, disheartened and disenfranchised with a party that ignores the will of its conservative base, casting aside principle & conviction to placate to some fantasy of winning over the moderate masses. The Republican Party's leadership, its establishment operatives, and far too many of its voters have become so concerned with 'winning', that they've tangled themselves in a web of their own delusional devices when it comes down to whom they've crowned from the very beginning as their annointed nominee, Mitt Romney. And from last night's blue state primary results, it's looking more and more foreboding that the party establishment is ready to plunge the shiv into the conservative heart of the party once more with the nomination of the worst candidate we could have at this crucial moment in American history. This feels like 1964 or 1976 all over again.

Think of 1964 and the scrap between the forces aligned with Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller, or 1976, between backers of Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. On both occasions, the result was identical: a party disunited, a nominee debilitated, a general election down the crapper.

I'm thoroughly disgusted with this primary season; one that, besides the volatility that we've become accustom to in these kinds of races to the top, has misled with open primaries, confusing caucuses, changes in state election rules, far too many debates with liberal moderators, and not to mention the corruption of both the Washington establishment and mainstream media attacks and diversions. Far too many Republican voters are being duped, just as they were in 2008 with the crowning of McCain.

Seniority and pageantry in the guise of electability and inevitability are no way to select a victorious nominee. Yet, the Republican elite are attempting to win the presidency against a very defeatable president, but with a man whose possibly the weakest principled among the crop of candidates...however, he's the one that's certain to tow the party line, so that's who they've gotta have. This man...



Here's some questions to consider: How is it that this country can swing radically Left, but God forbid we shift back to a conservative perspective? No, I guess if conservatives were to win, then the Republican elite would definitely lose power. So, we can only go moderate from here, huh? Showing true conviction will scare off those precious 'moderates'. What's it say when moderates matter more to the Republican Party than its conservative base? When placating becomes more important than conviction? It says the party has lost its way.

Fellow conservatives, this party is doing the opposite of what Reagan rallied for...instead of conservatives taking over Republican ranks, the establishment is digging in and this party is leaving us.

Folks, a moderate establishment nominee is not going to cut it...we've already tried this four years ago. It didn't work. So now we run a guy who couldn't even beat the last Republican nominee, much less the eventual 44th President?! That's gonna work? We see now that the establishment wing of the party hasn't learned a damn thing...but sadly, I think many of us already realized that when we witnessed how much they fought us in the 2010 mid-terms. Just short of a miracle (actually, we could probably use one of those about now), I guess all there is to say is 'good luck' in the general with this unexciting stump.

Obama indignant and ignorant at AP luncheon

I'm still having a hard time believing that headline actually ran on Yahoo News, but it did!

President Barack Obama attended an Associated Press luncheon Tuesday during which he took several questions. Naturally, the topic of the warning he issued to the Supreme Court on Monday arose.

Just as a cornered badger will lash out, Obama, clearly on the ropes, lashed out at the Supreme Court on Monday. That is what the Court does -- it overturns unconstitutional laws passed by Congress. Even AP Chairman Dean Singleton pointed this out in a question at the luncheon.

Also, there was never a "strong majority" or the Democrats would not have had to use parliamentary tricks and downright conniving to pass the bill. A strong majority would mean the bill sailed through.

"We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on an economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce -- a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we're going back to the '30s, pre New Deal," Obama said.

This from a self-proclaimed constitutional professor...

In that last bit, he was responding to a questioner who had disputed his suggestion that a ruling against the law would be "unprecedented." But the questioner accurately pointed out "that's exactly what the court has done through it's entire existence."

The piece goes on to explain that Lochner refers to "a 1905 case dealing with working hours of a baker and the attempt to regulate them under the guise of health," but points out Obama's incorrect assertions:

The Supreme Court has ruled on several commerce-related issues "since Lochner," where government tried to use the commerce clause to expand its powers, including Wickard v Filburn (1942), United States v Lopez (1995) and United States v Morrison (2000), to name a few.

Finally, this astounding commentary concludes that the 'dumbest thing' that Obama said at the luncheon was "The burden is on those that would overturn a law like this," which directly conflicts several Amendments of the Constitution.

The Fifth, Ninth and 14th amendments ensure the burden of proof falls on the government when taking liberty or property from a citizen. Obamacare does both.

Then, as progressives always do when they have no real argument, Obama turned to emotion to justify the taking of our rights, just as they did while ramming the bill through Congress.

While I do agree that was pretty dumb, I don't know if I'd coin it the 'dumbest', simply because there were too many of those moments. While this piece solely focuses on his comments towards the SCOTUS, it doesn't cover other comments, like ridiculously joking about that treasonous hot mic moment with Medvedev...



...or mocking Romney (not that it's hard, but stupidly done by Obama)...



...or referring to Paul Ryan's budget as "social Darwinism"...



The man's rhetoric is turned up to 11...but only the usual choir boys are buying it. Obama is unhinged and unraveling before us as he becomes further unmoored from a constitutional rule of law. Hope you're watching, America!

Court of Appeals fires back at Obama's remarks

It takes a Reagan appointee to call this wannabe authoritarian regime on the separation of powers.

CBSNews: In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would not "take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

The article goes on to say that the DoJ lawyer clearly agreed with Judge Smith, a Reagan appointee, that indeed, the judiciary does hold the power to strike down unconstitutional law. Reflecting on Obama's "unelected group of people" comment yesterday, which was directed towards the half of the SCOTUS that aren't likely to march lockstep with his dictates, Smith went on to say that Obama's remarks indicated that he and his administration obviously don't believe judges have the power to review laws and strike down unconstitutional ones.

Barry, you just got served.

Obama targets SCOTUS (again)

He didn't like their decision two years ago, so he definitely doesn't like this challenge! 

It'd be comical if it weren't so disturbing, how this radical ideologue -- who appoints a couple of activist justices to the Supreme Court, whose own administration wouldn't exist without thousands of ‘unelected people' (some of whom are referred to as 'Czars') handing out one dictate after another through executive fiat, who circumvents constitutional law on a whim, using all the tools at his disposal to reign over the American people -- dishes it out, but when his authority is challenged, when his ideology is threatened by constitutional rule, he just can't take it...



Obama thinks you are too stupid to figure out that all of his criticism is nothing more than hypocritical spin. He calls the originalist justices 'activists' for daring to uphold our Founding document, when we all know who the activists are on the bench...and currently half of those were appointed by him! Respect for the Constitution and acknowledging separation of powers is not in this man's repertoire. And until he's gone, he will continue to target and intimidate those who stand in front of his utopian dreams.

ADDENDUM: Levin methodically ripped Obama's comments apart, via theRightScoop.

ADDENDUM II: Rush makes similar analyses of Obama's threats and puts every word in perspective on this morning's program...

Ann Romney: We 'better unzip' the real Mitt!

Thanks, Ann! You couldn't have delivered a more honest answer...

ABCNews: Ann Romney’s remarks came during an interview with Baltimore radio station WBAL, during which the host asked her, “And one of the things, Ann Romney, that folks talk about with your husband, Mitt Romney, and I’ve seen him in casual conversation-He comes off very smooth and okay. But sometimes he comes off stiff. Do you have to fight back some criticism, like ‘My husband isn’t stiff, OK?’”

Laughing, Ann Romney responded, “Well, you know, I guess we better unzip him and let the real Mitt Romney out because he is not!”

And if you still haven't gotten a good idea about who Mitt Romney is, perhaps Santorum's latest ad will help you.

Blue state special

Rush asked this morning if the GOP presidential race is over, then where's the party unity? Where's the positive ads about Romney's record? And why are some supposed conservative outlets still attacking Rick Santorum?

Presidential politics on the Republican side, conventional wisdom: it's over. Romney has it in the bag, conventional wisdom. Because we're now at the blue state stage of the Republican primary, and it's only natural to conclude that Romney will win. Why is that? 'Cause they're more moderate, right. And liberal, right. And that helps us how? It doesn't? Oh. Okay. So, the conventional wisdom is it's over. Romney is gonna steal it all away now. Wisconsin, Maryland, Washington tomorrow. Gonna win it at all. Gonna have a great April because of the lineup of blue states this month. My question -- and this is just me -- I'm not trying to make a big deal out of something here. I'm just curious about tactics and strategy.

Why continue all of the destructive attacks on Santorum? There are a lot of them out there. Fox News, Commentary, National Review Online, I mean they're dumping on Santorum like this race is neck and neck, and I'm wondering why are they still dumping on Santorum if this is all over. Why all the negative columns and comments and ads? It's over, right? Where's the healing? Where is the unity? If it's over, where are the more positive ads and columns and comments about Romney's record and campaign? Instead we're getting that his nomination is inevitable; he's the only one that can beat Obama. And, by the way, Santorum sucks. Santorum is horrible. Where's the unity? When's all this negative stuff gonna stop if it's over?

Perhaps when it's time to shake it up like an Etch-A-Sketch towards the general? Rush's comments sound familiarly like Levin's skepticism on Friday's program commenting on the 'rally around Romney' establishment cry, via theRightScoop: