Thursday, March 29, 2012

If only Sarah Palin had run ...

By Timothy Stanley, Special to CNN
updated 3:44 PM EDT, Thu March 29, 2012
Sarah Palin addresses the Conservative Political Action Conference on February 11 in Washington, D.C.
Sarah Palin addresses the Conservative Political Action Conference on February 11 in Washington, D.C.

  • Tim Stanley: If Sarah Palin were running, she would have the nomination in the bag by now
  • He says she lacks problems like Gingrich's hubris, Romney's elitism, Santorum's extremism
  • Stanley: Palin could rally male and female vote, young people, conservatives in large numbers
  • It's too late, Stanley writes; the GOP will have to wait till 2016 to get its maverick
Editor's note: Timothy Stanley is a historian at Oxford University and blogs for Britain's Daily Telegraph. He is the author of the new book "The Crusader: The Life and Times of Pat Buchanan."

(CNN) -- The Republican presidential primary hasn't exactly overflowed with talent. In December, it was a roll call of the undesirable Right: Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, Perry, Huntsman and Bachmann -- a list so long and bizarre that Count Dracula could have slipped in on the end and no one would have noticed. Except, as the citizens of Chicago will tell you, the dead always vote Democrat.

Now, we're down to a final three, discounting Ron Paul, who, I'm guessing, is only staying in the race to collect air miles. Although the talent pool has shrunk, it has gotten no deeper. As Mitt Romney suffers defeat after defeat at the hands of Rick Santorum, whose chances of winning this thing aren't high, his negatives mount up, and the president looks stronger by the day. The Republican Party is divided and in danger of becoming out of touch.

It didn't have to be this way. If Sarah Palin had entered the contest, I'd hypothesize two alternative realities. One, she'd have the nomination sewn up by now. Two, she'd be running even in the polls with the president.
What have proved to be problems for the top three candidates wouldn't have been problems for Palin. For starters, she has none of Newt Gingrich's intellectual hubris. There's no way Palin would have promised to put a mine on the moon or suggest arresting judges who make decisions that are too liberal. Her conservatism is far more domestic and down-to-Earth.
Timothy Stanley
Timothy Stanley
She's also more disciplined than Santorum. Although we'll probably be talking about them into the next century, Palin's only two serious public gaffes in 2008 happened when she was unable to name a newspaper and was stumped by the Bush doctrine, both slips a product of ignorance. Santorum, on the other hand, is guilty of knowing his own mind all too well, offering unwelcome opinions on everything from the evils of hard-core pornography to the racial politics of the Trayvon Martin tragedy.

Compare the response Palin gave to questions about her attitude toward evolution -- "I think it should be taught as an accepted principle, and I say that also as the daughter of a schoolteacher" -- with Santorum's claim that Satan ... has attacked America.

It's Palin who seems to have a better sense of the limited role that faith should play in politics and a better idea of when to keep her mouth shut. Moreover, she would never tell a journalist that he was talking "bull***t," even if she did congratulate Rick Santorum for doing so. Contrary to the media narrative, even at her most accident-prone, Palin has always been a classy, well-choreographed performer.

Lacking the foibles of Gingrich and Santorum, Palin would have been a far more effective anti-Romney candidate because her strengths accentuated Romney's weaknesses. Romney is known as the Etch A Sketch candidate; Palin is aggressively authentic. Romney is seen by many as a moneyed elitist; Palin is the conservative class warrior, happy to slam the "crony capitalism" that benefits both big labor and big business. Romney's limitations have been revealed, one by one, in the course of the primary campaign; Palin was well-vetted by the press in 2008 and has nothing left to say or do that would surprise us.

Love her or loathe her, we all know who Palin is. Her weaknesses, being old news, wouldn't have dominated the primary narrative like Bain Capital or Seamus the dog, made famous by his terrifying ride atop Romney's car. Palin would have spent the past three months attacking her opponents. Then she would have turned her guns on the president.

While it's reasonable to speculate that Palin could have gathered a much stronger anti-Mitt coalition earlier -- and broken out as the GOP front-runner sooner -- it's probably a bigger stretch to say that she would be running stronger against Obama right now.

The last national polling done on a hypothetical Palin candidacy was in September, and that showed the president beating her by double digits. Daily Kos did the math and gleefully calculated that Palin would win just seven states in November, and even Mississippi would be a tossup.

But those polls asked the public what they thought of a candidate who hadn't declared, who wasn't representing herself in the debates and who was still solely defined by the 2008 race. Guesstimating how well she would have done had she entered the 2012 contest is tough, but considering that at least some polls show both Romney and Santorum within a few points of Obama despite all their problems, it's not unreasonable to presume that Palin would run just as well.

Subtract Santorum's gaffes or Romney's elitism, and she might even do a little better. Polls suggest that many voters agree with Romney's approach to the economy but think he lacks empathy for the struggles facing the middle-class. Were she in the race, you can bet your bottom dollar that Palin wouldn't score so low on compassion and authenticity.

Most important, Palin has the character and reputation necessary to break out of the Republican Party's demographic prison. In matchups with Obama, Romney's core vote is financially comfortable seniors. He pulls even among all men and folks aged 35-54.

The Republicans desperately need a candidate who can appeal to lower-income voters, who can rally men, who can gain women's votes, who can bring out conservatives in large numbers and who can appeal to a younger demographic. All these things happened in the 2010 midterms, when the GOP made inroads into blue-collar households and middle-class suburbs on a policy platform virtually embodied by the Alaskan maverick.

The GOP needs a Tea Party candidate -- either Sarah Palin or someone very like her. Alas, it's going to have to wait until 2016 to get its rogue.

Why the U.S. may never have a balanced budget again

By Lisa Desjardins, CNN Radio
updated 3:43 PM EDT, Thu March 29, 2012
House Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan and members of the Budget Committee introduce their 2013 budget.
House Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan and members of the Budget Committee introduce their 2013 budget.

  • NEW: House approves Ryan 2013 budget, 228-191, will send to Senate
  • Expert who looked at numbers said it now may be impossible to balance the budget
  • Huge cuts and significant taxes would be required to dig out of deficit hole
Washington (CNN) -- The House has passed the Republican budget plan submitted by Rep. Paul Ryan, but some budget experts believe that he federal government is so far in the red that it may not balance the budget again in our lifetime.

"We may never, as a country, have a balanced budget again," said Marc Goldwein, policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "And you know what? We don't have to."
Goldwein is a bit of a budget wunderkind who was also a staffer for the Bowles-Simpson Commission, established by President Obama to address the nation's fiscal problems, and for the congressional super committee. He and the nonpartisan think tank where he works used to push vehemently for a balanced budget.

But no longer. Now the bumper sticker hanging in his cubicle reads, "Stabilize the Debt."
He feels that Washington has fallen so deep into the deficit hole that it has set off a seismic shift among some fiscal hawks. They now hope to contain the deficit, not erase it.

"It'd be great if we could balance the budget," Goldwein said. "But ... it's just not realistic to look at balancing the budget right now. Right now, what we need to look at is bringing the debt down relative to the economy."
The Ryan budget, despite its cuts and aggressive fiscal moves, does not balance the budget for at least 23 years, according to the House Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office.

"This just shows you how deep of a hole our country is in," Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the Budget Committee, said when asked about the 2035 budget balance date.
But in a city where politicians pass appropriation legislation for a few months or sometimes even a few days at a time, such a long timeline for balancing the budget seems hypothetical at best and meaningless at worst.
Hence that unlikely catchphrase "stabilize the debt."

Rep. Paul Ryan on GOP budget plan
The idea is to keep government's annual deficits small enough that they are outpaced by the growth in the economy. That, some say, would stop the current explosive path the national debt is on.

For example, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the 2011 deficit was nearly 9% of the economy, as measured by gross domestic product. But GDP itself grew by less than 2% during the same time.
Think of the economy as a living thing, like a tree. If the tree grew by a couple of feet last year but the deficit burned up several times that growth, it would use far more resources than had been created in the past year.
Goldwein and those who share his outlook want a budget under which that tree, the economy, grows by more than the deficit is burning and keeps adding fiscal height overall.

But under this scenario, the debt itself would probably grow -- just more slowly.
"We don't need a balanced budget," Goldwein concluded. "What we need to do is stabilize the debt relative to the economy."

To do that would take about $4 trillion in deficit cuts, he and others estimate. The Ryan budget gets there, but barely.

The problem?

"We're not going to get to this with one party," Goldwein asserted. "The public, I don't think, is going to be able to tolerate the level of cuts in Congressman Ryan's plan, even though the level of deficit reduction is only a little bit more than what we need."

Neither, Goldwein said, would the public tolerate a federal spending plan that cuts the deficit solely by raising taxes.

So nearly everyone in Washington admits that it would require compromise, but few admit that even a tough-to-get compromise most likely will just stabilize the budget, not balance it.



March 28, 2012
How desperate are Democrats? Desperate enough to rely on empty, hypocritical words to win women's votes.

After three years of Democrats' policies, a majority of Americans say the country is headed in the "wrong direction." Democrats know they are in trouble, and they want a diversion - anything to distract from their record of failures and broken promises.

So they fashioned an outlandish narrative - the "War on Women" - and then declared they would "stand for women" in this contrived "war."

But while Democrats claim to stand with women, women say they can no longer withstand the Democrats' agenda. According to a CBS News/New York Times poll last week, Barack Obama's approval rating among women is down 12 points from just last month.

In short, their rhetoric is not working. Women care most about the difficult times facing our families and the direction of our country - not DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz's latest political ploy.

Mothers like me worry about our children's future. For the first time in my life, a majority of Americans believe their children will be worse off than they were. We see the skyrocketing national debt and shudder to think of the burden the next generation will bear.

They are already weighed down by student debt and record-high college costs. Since Obama took office, tuition rates have increased 25 percent. The president has made numerous speeches on the topic, but his plans to cut costs have been criticized by education experts, and his loan reforms would save the average student less than $10 a month.

Wives like me wonder how to keep our family's finances in order. In the Obama economy, wages are shrinking. But grocery bills and healthcare bills are growing. Millions of families face underwater mortgages and the continued threat of foreclosure, despite Obama's promises to save us from the housing crisis.

Gas prices add further strain to the household budget. The price of a gallon of gas has more than doubled since Obama took office. He promised a comprehensive energy policy as a candidate, but as president he has blocked projects like the Keystone pipeline and squandered taxpayer money on failed companies like Solyndra. He says there is no "silver bullet" to lower energy prices, but if he had spent the last three years pursuing domestic sources of energy, we might feel less pain today.

Businesswomen like me wish Obama would stop attacking job creators. We are overburdened by regulations, weighed down by mandates, and worried about the threat of higher taxes. Were it not for Obamacare and Democrats' regulatory regime, small businesses could hire more workers - and increase economic output.

For 37 straight months, unemployment in America has been above 8 percent. 12.8 million Americans are out of work, and millions more cannot find enough work to meet their needs. Obama's misguided economic policies have created an inhospitable job market.

Under the Obama presidency, women are not better off because America is not better off. Government spending is unsustainable. Economic conditions are unacceptable. Future crises are unimaginable.

Democrats' promise to "stand for women" is as hollow a slogan as "hope and change." Worse, it's hypocritical: while they lob attacks at Republicans, they embrace celebrities like Bill Maher, whose serial misogyny is a staple of his political talk show. A pro-Obama SuperPAC, run by a former White House aide, gladly took Maher's $1 million check, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz has cheerfully appeared on his show.

Women know we need a new direction. We need leaders who put economic opportunity ahead of political opportunism. We need a president who will stop mortgaging our children's future and implement a pro-growth agenda.

Republicans stand for the solutions Americans have been demanding the last three years: domestic energy, free markets, low taxes, less government intrusion, and greater personal liberty. With priorities like these, Republicans are fighting for women's interests, and a Republican president will truly "stand for women."

After all, as a woman and a Republican, I should know.

Sharon Day is co-chair of the Republican National Committee.
What I Believe
by: Diane Sori

So many people have asked me what I believe in regards to what religion I am, how could I so strongly support a Mormon (remember Article 6, paragraph 3 of the Constitution states: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.)…you know the game and the questions asked of me and yet I wonder why this is so important to so many, for what do my lowly personal beliefs matter in the scope of what we patriots are trying to do.  Well, now that I have my own blog I will tell you, and hopefully put this to rest.  Yes, I do totally and completely believe in the one true living God of the Christians and Jews but I do question the motives behind certain Christian movements of today.  

Through much study, I have come to realize that the actual concept of ‘religion’ per say was invented by man to make himself either closer to God or to force people to follow those who envisioned themselves as God’s so-called right hand men or chosen religion.  I learned that God was quite satisfied in the worship of Him as laid out in the Old Testament for one chose to either believe in Him, follow and heed Him or not.  The consequences of one’s choice, one’s free will if you wish, remained between that person and God and no one else.  This worked quite well for so long and even with the birth of Jesus, God’s only begotten Son, this simple premise still worked well until the advent of the many religious orders, denominations, and movements who all claimed that their way was the ONLY way to an everlasting life with God in Heaven.

Sadly though one concept all Judeo-Christian religions, orders, and denominations had and still have in common to some degree is that all known religious beliefs and dogma have been responsible for more death, war, destruction, and hate than any other concept ever known to man.  We hate, we fight, we kill, we maim, we torture, we try to convert, all the while saying God is on our side and our religion’s side alone.  And BTW, I know fully well the death and destruction the false religion of islam has caused but that is an entirely different perverted ball game for another post.  To continue, today we still pit Christian against Jew, Jew against Christian, Christian against Catholic, Catholic against Protestant, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists against ALL who do not believe their way, the list goes on and on.  We say, and I am using the proverbial we here, only our particular religion is the true way to God, and shun or proselytize to those who do NOT follow our particular way or words.  And this is so sad and so wrong.

Why is this wrong…it’s wrong simply because nothing should ever stand between man and God, and some Christian denominations today, and I only say some, seem to do just that.  Instead of uniting Christians and Jews behind the one and only God the Father, certain denominations seem to divide us, as witnessed by the simple fact that there are over 33,000 Protestant sects alone.  How can we ever be whole if there are so many groups claiming theirs is the only true way to God.  I believe God truly loves us and that He forgives us when we sin, for He knows that we, His creation, are not perfect nor will we ever be, as free will has seen to that. I believe that no religious dogma, ritual, or organizational structure that dictates how one should worship, or how many or what prayers one should say, or how one will go to heaven based on the sole beliefs of any one given denomination, should ever come between one’s personal relationship with God.  

Having FAITH, I believe, is the key to it all.  The relationship between someone and God is personal and no man, nor any religion, nor any dogma, nor any sect or their followers should ever try to come between that most personal of all relationships…that of someone and God the Father, for aren’t ALL we Christians and Jews His children.  I truly believe we are, and I for one am proud to say that I am a Child of God the Most Holy, yet my personal religious beliefs shall remain between me and God, for no one has a right to invade such a personal relationship, nor is there any need for it to be publicized for it does NOT affect what I do.  I do NOT and will NOT ever wear religion on my sleeve for religion and God are in my heart, and in my heart is where it matters and where they shall stay, because I have seen some who profess religion the loudest are the most hypocritical of all..

I hope this puts these questions of what I am and what I believe to rest now that at least you all know I AM a believer.  I just wish we could all unite behind the one true living God of the Christians and Jews, because only through unity will we ever truly accomplish one of our missions, that of turning back our beloved America to God the Creator as laid out in our Declaration of Independence…“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Looks like Iran is giving Israel open season on Muslim invaders

Looks like Iran is giving Israel open season on Muslim invaders

Iran flying thousands of Jew-hating pro-Palestinian terrorist supporters to Syria, who will join what Muslims and lefties are hoping will be a million protesters or more, attempting to break through Israel borders and take over Jerusalem, eternal capital of Israel.

DEBKA  Israel boosted its Syrian and Lebanese border units as special flights carrying thousands of pro-Palestinian activists from Tehran touched down in Damascus Tuesday, March 27 for the international Global March to Jerusalem Friday, March 30.
FRONTPAGE  The Global March to Jerusalem is being billed as a peaceful march, but in reality it’s a Muslim crusade calling for the ethnic cleansing of a Jewish city and a number of its organizers have Hamas ties and have made genocidal statements about the Jews.

Tipping its hand is the logo of the Global March which encompasses all of Israel from Kiryat Shmona in the north all the way down to Eilat in the south, making it quite clear that this isn’t just about one city; it’s about all of them and all the land around them. It’s about the complete destruction of Israel.
Like the Gaza Flotilla, the Global March depends heavily on harnessing Western useful idiots, whom it needs in order to avoid looking like the Iran/Hamas ethnic cleansing project that it is. Like revenants summoned from their crypt, the living dead of the left, widely discredited, morally bankrupt and repugnantly shrill, rise to the call of their Islamic masters.
Protests are set to take place along the Israeli borders and at various Israeli embassies in Europe. Although the protests are primarily comprised of Arab protesters, the movement has received endorsements from a number of high profile European and American NGOs and individuals such as U.S. based NGO Code Pink and public figures such as Cornel West, Tariq Ali, Judith Butler, and Noam Chomsky.

Before taking off, they were split into small groups and tutored by Iranian Al Qods (Arabic name for Jerusalem) Brigades officers in tactics for breaching Israeli border barriers, bursting through and challenging the Israeli military forces defending the border.
On arrival in Damascus, one group of activists was sent by special bus to Lebanon, where Hizballah officers stood by to lead them to villages close to the Israeli frontier; a second is assigned to face Israeli lines on the Golan.
These anti-Israeli activists from several countries are being planted at strategic points to carry out the plan hatched together by Iran, Syria and Hizballah to ignite Israel’s two northern borders in solidarity with the annual Israeli-Arab Earth Day next Friday.
Earlier reports from Damascus that the demonstrators would keep the Quneitra sector of the Golan and the Lebanese Beaufort were meant to put the Israeli command off its stroke by disguising the real scope of their plans and their objective:  a mass assault on Israeli borders. They are programmed to coincide with the outbreaks the Palestinian Authority is preparing for Jerusalem and the West Bank and Israeli-Arab disturbances inside Israel – all on the same day, as debkafile reported earlier Tuesday. The Palestinian extremists of the Gaza Strip will certainly not stand aloof.

Tens of thousands or maybe (as organizers are boasting) millions of allegedly ‘peaceful’ protesters from all over the world will line up Israel’s borders on March 30th, and many of them will physically try to invade the sovereign nation of Israel.
Hopefully Israel will not hesitate to shoot these hostiles who will be penetrating  their country illegally, as any country would (except America on its southern border). Whatever happens, you can be sure the global media will be there condemning Israel for murdering  innocent, unarmed civilians, many of them hoping to become martyrs for the cause, no doubt.
And what would a protest be without the requisite Pallywood cameramen being there to stage fake casualties in case there are none.

House approves Ryan budget plan to cut spending, taxes

By Rosalind S. Helderman

The House of Representatives on Thursday approved a $3.5 trillion budget plan proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on a 228 to 191 vote, largely along party lines.

House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) center, holds up a copy of his budget plan, entitled "The Path to Prosperity," Tuesday, March 20, 2012. (Jacquelyn Martin - AP) 
The plan aims to curb exploding deficits through deep cuts in domestic programs, while lowering tax rates for individuals and businesses.

The plan will be rejected by the Democratic-majority Senate. But the House vote is significant for the opportunity it presented both parties to lay down a marker on the nation’s key fiscal issues heading into the November election campaign.

The House vote breakdown was 228 Republicans in favor, 181 Democrats and 10 Republicans opposed.
Republicans said the budget represented an honest attempt to tackle the nation’s growing trouble with debt.
“We have an obligation, not just a legal obligation, but a moral obligation to do something about it,” Ryan said on the House floor Wednesday.

But Democrats said it would cut deficits by hitting programs relied on by the poor and vulnerable, like Medicaid, food stamps, education and other programs.

They said they were eager to use the Ryan plan as the linchpin of an election year argument that Republicans favor the wealthy over the middle class and are using deficits as an excuse to shrink domestic programs they’ve long opposed.

“Because our Republican colleagues refuse to ask millionaires to contribute one cent to deficit reduction, they hit everyone and everything else,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) during House debate Wednesday.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Thursday that the Ryan plan would create “a segmented replacement for Medicare that would burden seniors and end the program as we know it.”

In many ways, the debate and the vote were a repeat of a House debate over a Ryan plan introduced a year ago. Democrats were convinced they won the political upper hand in that battle and have signaled they will use Ryan’s plan and its Medicare adjustments through the November election.

But the GOP is convinced that independent voters are deeply concerned about government spending and that their passage of a detailed budget plan undercuts President Obama portrayal of a do-nothing Congress. The Senate, by contrast, has not passed a budget in three years.

Under Ryan’s blueprint, the Medicare eligibility age would rise over time beginning in 2023 from 65 to 67. In the future, seniors would be given government assistance to purchase private health-insurance plans or could continue to take part in the current fee-for-service model. Spending would be capped, meaning risks and costs could shift to seniors as health-care costs rise.

The plan also would set agency budgets for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 at $1.028 trillion — $19 billion less than agreed to in the difficult deal to lift the nation’s debt ceiling over the summer.

Republicans in the House will now work to design appropriations bills that specify line-by-line budgets for federal programs around the lower number, setting up a potential clash with the Senate in the fall as the fiscal year ends.

They will also work to flesh out tax system overhaul plans laid out by Ryan. He proposed collapsing the six individual tax brackets into just two brackets, taxed at 10 and 25 percent. To cut the top rate to that level, from 35 percent, he suggested closing loopholes and ending subsidies.

Some analyses suggest the only way to generate that kind of revenue would mean raising the tax burden on middle-income earners to pay for the lowered tax rate for the wealthy. Republicans insist wealthy taxpayers benefit disproportionately from loopholes, and they are committed to a progressive code with lower rates.

Ryan’s budget would cut $5.3 trillion from deficits over the next decade, bringing deficits down from more than 8 percent of gross domestic product to 1.2 percent by 2022.

It would not balance, however, until 2040. Conservatives with the Republican Study Committee who want to cut spending more quickly introduced their own spending plan that called for balancing the budget within five years. It was defeated earlier on a 136 to 285 vote.

A Democratic budget authored by Van Hollen, which would cut deficits more slowly than the Republican plan with less severe cuts in federal programs, failed Thursday on a 163 to 262 vote.

NO-bamaCare most definitely seems doomed!

On Wednesday the Supreme Court concluded oral arguments on the constitutionality of ObamaCare. 
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin calls the case "a train wreck for the Obama Administration" and noted that ObamaCare "is now in serious trouble, it also seems that the individual mandate is doomed."

200,000 signatures, of which mine was but one, on FreedomWorks petition to End ObamaCare Now, was delivered to the Supreme Court, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid before the legal arguments commenced, and it seems the constant grassroots pressure is working, as finally our voices are being heard.

Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, the critical swing vote on the Court that will likely decide the case, was openly skeptical of ObamaCare during oral arguments:
“The government is saying that the federal government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act," he said, "and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in the very fundamental way."

Justice Kennedy also cautioned that the government has a “very high burden of justification” for ObamaCare, an indication that Justice Kennedy will likely oppose the individual mandate. 

An official ruling is not expected until the end of June, but if Kennedy does join the conservative bloc represented by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Scalia, and Clarence Thomas…'We the People' will have a historic 5-4 decision to End ObamaCare Now!

This death blow should end NO-bama's re-election hopes.  This president has so overstepped his boundaries on so many issues, and has lied about so many things, that this rejection of his so-called 'signature piece of legislation' cannot come soon enough for me.  I pray Justice Kennedy carries through on the way he seems to be leaning so America can at least have a glimmer of hope to carry us through these next most difficult and trying months.

Marco Rubio Endorses MITT ROMNEY for President

Last night on Hannity, Senator Marco Rubio (R, FL) officially endorsed MITT ROMNEY for president, saying saying Romney offers "a very clear alternative" to President Obama's vision for the future of the country.  And I so agree agree on that.

Rubio,who has been discussed as a possible vice presidential candidate, criticized talk of a fight for the Republican nomination on the convention floor, a possibility that is keeping alive the campaigns of Rick Santorum and Newt Geingrich. "I think that's a recipe for delivering four more years of Barack Obama," Rubio said.

When asked by Hannity about a possible VP candidacy, Rubio once again side-stepped the possibility of becoming the VP nod but in very carefully crafted words did NOT say no.  Rubio may be playing down his interest in the vice presidential nomination publicly, but he is currently taking the necessary steps to prepare for taking the slot.

For example, Rubio’s political committee has shelled out more than $40,000 for investigators to look into negative attacks that could emerge against him. This month, he asked the Florida Commission on Ethics to dispense with a complaint that he misused Republican Party and campaign money “to subsidize his lifestyle” while in the state Legislature....which BTW, he did NOT!

And last week, Rubio announced he is pushing up publication of his autobiography to June. That will create positive publicity for him BEFORE the Republican National Convention and allow him to get his story out before the public.

Ana Navarro, a Republican fundraiser and Rubio friend in Miami, said, “Marco’s saying all the right things, because nobody who wants to be vice president should admit it. But he’s bound to be on the nominee’s shortlist, and he’s smart to prepare for it now. If he does get asked, it will be very hard to say no.”

At a fundraiser in 2010, ROMNEY told The Shark Tank, "Senator-elect Rubio is a tremendously charismatic and inspiring candidate."  Romney also told The Shark Tank just recently, after being asked about how he felt about a possible ROMNEY/RUBIO ticket, ROMNEY answered with a simple, yet telling statement, ” I really like Marco, I would love to see him win…can you imagine a Conservative Hispanic in Washington?”

And so, while Rubio may sincerely believe, for now at least, that he won’t be picked as the VP, no one is buying that bologna ;)  because if Marco Rubio is asked to be the VP nominee, he will accept the nod.  This I firmly believe.

The End Of America As We Know It?

I have often been on the record as saying this is not the most important election of our lifetime, but in our entire nation’s history.  Come this November we will choose our identity as a nation.  Will we start to regain our standing in the free world or will we finish the transition to a nation that more closely resembles Western Europe?  The choice is ours.


Over the past couple of days the focus of the media, and rightly so, has been on the Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of  'ObamaCare.'  All signs are indicating that there is an anti-individual mandate majority among the justices.  This is a good development for the cheerleaders of freedom. Unfortunately the cheers may transform to tears come November.  Right now, our Supreme Court is comprised of four conservative justices, four liberal justices and one all important swing vote in Justice Kennedy. At 75 years young, you may be able to call him the most powerful man in the country.

Even if the Affordable Health Care Act is struck down by the court, there will be much more to worry about. Our President is up for re-election and elections have consequences.  If Obama gets re-elected we just may be handing him the hammer to put the final big government nail in the coffin of our children’s future prosperity.  President Obama has already put not one, but two liberal activist judges on the highest court in the land.  If Justice Ginsburg, who has had numerous health issues of late, decides to retire this year Obama will surely nominate another liberal to the court.  Should he prevail in November and Justice Kennedy decides to call it quits in our Commander in Chiefs second term he will be able to place a fourth liberal judge to the court tipping the balance of power to a 5-4 liberal majority.  It will no longer be the Supreme Court.  It will be “Barack’s Bench” and all laws passed by Congress will be found constitutional.  There will no longer be any restraint on government.

Think about that for a moment and let it sink in…four out of the nine Supreme Court Justices of the United States of America could be chosen by a person who wanted to “fundamentally transform America."  If he gets re-elected in November, and with a little bad luck with the health and aging of SCOTUS, he may just get his wish.  Big government will reign for decades to come and it will be the end of America as we know it.

Blaise Ingoglia, Founder
Government Gone Wild!

More Threat Allegations Surface: The Soros-Funded Media Matters And The Obama Regime Are Threatening The Media Over The Birth Certificate Issue?

     As evidence mounts that the "birth certificate" released by Team Obama is a "computer-generated forgery,"  EVEN MORE shocking revelations are coming out that Barack Obama's surrogates and far-left power-brokers are engaged in a massive and tyrannical effort to SILENCE the conservative media from reporting on Mr. Obama's eligibility.

     However, there's some good news to report as well. A few brave souls in the conservative media are finally daring to break the silence. Diana West, who writes for The Washington Times, recently blew the whistle: "Clearly, something has us all on lockdown. That’s much, much scarier than even the amazing possibility that some con artist might be pulling off the biggest scam in history."

     And, as we previous reported, Mike Zullo, the lead investigator of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Cold Case Posse stated; "During our investigation, we actually were told [that media] had been threatened with FTC investigations. Commentators [had been] threatened with their jobs.” And according to, the "threats were so intimidating that some individuals quit their positions over safety concerns for their families."

     Of course, there's more ... and even more will follow; but for now, one thing is certain.

     The Obama Regime is not just illegitimate... now that the illegitimacy and tyrannical abuses of the Obama White House are finally starting to see the light of day, the Obama Regime is coming unglued. Like a cornered animal, IT IS OUT OF CONTROL, and if we do not take action, right here and right now, we may very well lose our country.

  Radio talk show host Mark Gillar recently stated: "One of the things you hear on the street is that they're [members of the media] being threatened. You hear rumors of the White House threatening to use the full force of the FCC or... the FTC to come after them if they don't get in line."

     But the threat allegations appear to more than rumors. Dr. Jerome Corsi, stated that the Cold Case Posse is looking into allegations of threats being issued to members of the media and is actively pursuing those allegations:

     "Testimony is being developed that the White House is intimidating, in a systematic way, the mainstream media and if any broadcasters dare go into this birther story, they're going to risk FCC investigations... people are going to have careers ruined... thrown off the air."

     If Corsi's is correct, it would explain a great many things:

It might explain why CNN mysteriously released commentator Lou Dobbs from his contract two years ago because he refused to stop reporting on the controversy behind Obama's "birth certificate."

It would explain why Glenn Beck was suddenly released from his contract with FOX News even though he had one of the highest rated shows in cable television at the time. While Beck actively refused to investigate the legitimacy of Mr. Obama's "birth certificate," it was clear that his reporting, on a host of other issues, put him on the Obama Regime's hit list.

And it would explain why talk show host Sean Hannity recently said that back in 2008 he was specifically told, on multiple occasions, that his continued insistence on reporting on the Jeremiah Wright-Obama connection could be career-ending. 

     Obviously, more is going on than meets the eye, and obviously... something has been afoot for a long time; but if you're thinking that the media is not reporting this story out of an honest belief that there's nothing there... or out of misguided arrogance... or elitism... think again.

     Diane West again: "One editor told me the problem is the evidence of fraud might prove to be true! A very famous conservative figure told me that if the president were proved to be an identity thief, 'that would alienate too many people.'"

“Ridicule Is Man’s Most Potent Weapon. ... The Threat Is Generally More Terrifying Than The Thing Itself." -Saul Alinsky

     Alinsky's lesson is not to be taken lightly. Ridicule, or the threat of ridicule, can be even more intimidating than the threat of physical violence or loss of livelihood.

     Andrew Breitbart's successor, Ben Shapiro, inadvertently and unintentionally demonstrated the point, and his demonstration might give us a window into why others have neglected to give the pressing issue of Obama's eligibility any serious coverage.

     During a recent radio interview Mark Gillar literally grilled Shapiro on why he would NOT be investigating Barack Obama's eligibility as part of his ongoing campaign to "Vet Barack Obama."

     Unable to get a straight answer from Shapiro, Gillar continued to press him on the question. Shapiro vacillated at every turn until he started talking in circles. At one point he told Gillar that "people aren't interested in this [the birth certificate issue]." Seconds later, clearly flustered, he contradicted himself and acknowledged that he'd received a massive amount of emails on the birth certificate issue.


     Gillar pressed forward, but Shapiro repeatedly assured Gillar that he had "looked into" the birth certificate issue and that pursuing it would be a "waste of time." And yet, Shapiro could not give Gillar a coherent answer as to why pursuing Obama's eligibility would be a waste of time, other than to say; "I'm one of those people who yawns at it;" and it was clear, to even the casual observer, that Shapiro had not "looked into" the issue at all.

     AND THEN... IT HAPPENED... as Gillar continued to press him, in an unscripted moment of candor, the truth finally came out when Shapiro, clearly flustered, blurted out, "Media Matters, don't listen to this." And just in case the folks from Media Matters were indeed listening, Shapiro continued and stammered: "I don't think it's true... and I think people should move beyond it."

     And there you have it... the naked truth. It's not arrogance or elitism that's preventing so-called conservative media figures from covering this constitutional crisis... IT'S FEAR!

West introduces Limited End Strength Reduction Act

Legislation assures military drawdown is safe and responsible  

(WASHINGTON)--- Congressman Allen West (R-FL) today introduced the Limited End Strength Reduction Act of 2012, ensuring our Army and Marine Corps have the financial resources they need for a responsible drawdown in Afghanistan, while continuing to meet our National Security objectives. The bill slows the pace of the President’s end strength reductions by placing limits on the number of troops than can be eliminated annually.

"Our men and women in the Armed Forces do not need to continue to be the bill payer for fiscal irresponsibility," West said. "We cannot ask our Army and Marines to fight these wars and not supply them with the resources they need to end these combat operations without undue risk."

The bill requires the Army not be reduced by more than 15,000 members per year during fiscal years 2014 through 2017. The bill requires the Marine Corps not be reduced by more than 5,000 members per year during fiscal years 2014 through 2017.

"No one knows the perils of an insufficiently manned Army better than Allen West," said United States House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-CA). "His combat experience and service to this nation, both in Congress and in the Army, give him unique expertise. This legislation helps us not only pave a path to security, it eases the strain on our heavily-stressed military. Mr. West's bill has my full support."

In addition, the Limited End Strength Reduction Act assures our military has the resources it needs to prevent overly burdensome or repeated deployments among our men and women serving, who have been at war now for more than ten years.

"Our men and women in uniform have paid a great price already, with years away from their families, serious injuries, both physical and emotional, and all too often, with their own lives," West said. "We owe it to our military to continue to provide them the resources and support needed, and the Limited End Strength Reduction Act does just that."
Why I am now a Blogger
By: Diane Sori

Hi guys, it's me Diane Sori, the girlie-patriot.  As you all know by now I have been in a battle with Facebook for a few months now and I have really reached a breaking point.  I have much information to get out to everyone and once again I'm being banned, this time for 60 days...and why, because I TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CORRUPT AND TRAITOROUS NO-BAMA REGIME AND HIS SANCTIONED ISLAMIZATION OF AMERICA!

I cannot sit idly by for 60 days and watch the lame stream media (who has been hijacked by this regime) feed everyone a bunch of lies and half truths as Facebook removes, blocks, bans, and banishes those of us trying to get the truth out.  I never wanted to be a blogger per se but I have been forced to go this route by Facebook, and its stacked against us policies and conditions, plus the simple fact that there is NO human contact allowed between them and us.

So many lies have been spread about me personally over Facebook, like I am NOT who I say I am, I am a troll or a hacker, I am  a spreader of lies, and NONE of it is true!  I am simply me, Diane Sori, an American Patriot, in fact one of millions just like you, who refuses to let our beloved America be changed into something unrecognizable to us by a man and his cohorts who not only want to radically alter and destroy our great nation but who also want to take away our children's future.  And this I cannot idly sit by and watch and do nothing like so many of the apathetic know who you're the ones who whine and complain but who refuse to get out there in the trenches and become part of the solution instead of feeding into the problem.  We patriots ARE the grassroots movement and each of us has something unique to offer to this movement, and offer it we must.

So I write, I post, I comment, I speak at meetings and sometimes on the radio, I go campaigning, I attend rallies, I spread the word any and every where I can.  While I remain in Facebook jail, and even after I am let out, I will blog as I will NOT allow them to silence me ever again.  I hope all my true Facebook friends, subscribers, and members of our Patriots United Against Obama Propaganda group (and our Patriots Against the Islamization of America page, our Stand United with Our Marine Heroes Against 'Urinegate' page, and our Stop the Koran Burning Trials page), as well as my personal page, will check in from time to time to see what I have to say.  While my postings might be somewhat controversial to some or my opinions might NOT always agree with yours, rest assured that what I say will always come from my heart, and will always put America and 'We the People' first and foremost.