Friday, April 20, 2012

New Evidence That Catholics Could Seal Obama’s Doom This November

Obama Pope Birth Control SC New Evidence That Catholics Could Seal Obamas Doom This November
Since such records have been kept, no Democrat presidential candidate has ever lost the Catholic vote and won the general election. Republicans can win a general election despite losing the Catholic vote but a Democrat simply can’t. This makes Barack Obama’s war on Christians in general and Catholics in particular so dangerous for him and his Party.

The results of a new Pew survey of voters by religious affiliation holds devastating news for Obama’s chances of re-election. The ease with which it can be found proves this news is being purposely ignored by a delusional media that believes Obama is cruising toward an easy re-election.

Pew found Mitt Romney with a commanding lead among Evangelical and Catholic voters that has actually grown by 5 and 8 points respectively in just the past month. Obama now trails Mitt Romney 73/20 among Evangelicals and 57/37 among white Catholics.

The significance of Pew’s findings among white Catholics grows geometrically when added to that of Evangelicals because it means that Obama is also on track to lose by a very large margin among whites, who make up 2/3 of the electorate in November.

Over the history of polling by religious affiliation, the Catholic vote has served as a 90% accurate predictor of final results. Moreover, the winning Catholic percentage has consistently been very close to the winner’s victorious percentage in the general election – Obama’s 54% of the Catholic vote was the same as his overall winning margin in 2008.

Democrats like Hubert Humphrey in 1968 have even won the Catholic vote with landslide numbers (56/37) and still lost their race. Conversely, George McGovern was pummeled in 1972 when he lost Catholics by 20 points.

The fight is just getting underway.

The hard numbers point to an electoral disaster for Obama and his Party next November. To avoid this total wipe-out, Obama has to reverse himself and back down from his demands that the Catholic Church change her doctrine to suit him. Since that is not going to happen, the question becomes: how vigorously will the Catholic Church fight back?

If a new video titled Test of Fire: Election 2012  from a group called Catholics Called to Witness is an indicator of what is coming from Catholics who are determined to defeat Obama, his Election night will be a nightmare.  This brief video contains a chilling reminder that the way a Catholic votes next November will be recorded for “eternity.” This time, Catholics are playing for keeps and starting with a huge lead.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath
November’s NOT just about the presidency anymore
By: Diane Sori

While I have posted and commented on this issue before on the 'Patriots United Against Obama Propaganda' group site and on other sites, I think it's important enough to discuss this critical topic once again here on my blog.

It’s so sad to see that many people still fail to realize that while getting Obama out of office in November IS our primary goal, we must NOT lose sight of something equally as important, and that is the House and Senate races.  People, for whatever reason, just seem to forget that it's Congress that must approve specific nominations like cabinet positions, federal judges, and most importantly, Supreme Court justices.  Get the wrong people elected to Congress, you know ultra-liberals and left wing loons, and you will have those people making decisions on who will sit on the bench of the Highest Court in our land.

“We the People’ do NOT want to see the Supreme Court become the ‘Court of the Liberal Agenda.’  Our Conservative margin is holding on by a thread but with Kagan and Sotomayor constantly bloviating and trying to push their liberal points of view and left-leaning nonsense down our throats, we need to be ever more vigilant in making the right choices as to whom we elect or re-elect to both the Congress and to the presidency.

With four justices getting up in years and with some thinking of stepping down, it becomes extremely critical to remember that whomever wins the presidency in November will probably be nominating at least one, and probably more, new justices to the Supreme Court...justices who will be making major decisions about our lives and liberties for years, no, for decades, to come. 

All it would take is for one more liberal to be nominated and approved for the entire balance of the Court to change.  We cannot afford to let this happen under any circumstances.  Only by holding a majority in the House and Senate can we assure that even if the worst case scenario happened and Obama got re-elected, a Republican controlled Congress would be able to stop him dead in his tracts of wanted to turn the Supreme Court to the left.  No liberal nomination would be approved and that would be our trump card, which would not only stop the change in balance of the Court but it would also render a re-elected Obama completely and totally impotent in all matters requiring a vote of Congress

So with all the nonsense going on concerning the primaries and who should we vote for now that Santorum has dropped out, it’s high time to put our differences aside and UNITE behind the most probable nominee, that being Mitt Romney.  At least we can be assured that with Romney at the helm our Supreme Court will stay conservative and the liberties we take for granted will be protected.  Re-elect Obama or left-leaning candidates to the House and Senate, and you can be assured the Supreme Court will be turning left and then with the power of the court behind him, Obama will know NO bounds, and he will get his wish to fundamentally change our beloved America without having to sully his hands.

Bottom Republican candidates this November straight down the line...America having a future depends on it.
How Romney can win BIG against Barack Obama

With the Republican nomination virtually wrapped up, polls indicate voters are inclined to give Mitt Romney a serious second look.

No wonder. The economy is in a sorry state—there are young graduates without hope for a decent first job, older Americans without hope for a dignified retirement, and too many folks in between hopelessly stuck in jobs with shrinking paychecks.

Yet, despite a general feeling among voters that the country is headed in the wrong direction, President Obama still leads in the polls, especially among women. Simply put, Mr. Romney has not convinced enough voters he can do better—at least not yet.

Merely offering stock Republican remedies—lower taxes and deregulation—is all too reminiscent of George W. Bush, who, through irresponsible spending and neglect of Wall Street shenanigans, nearly wrecked the American economy for good.

Mr. Romney must beat Barack Obama on his own rhetorical grounds—fairness and hope—or the president will get four more years.

Mr. Obama presides over an abusively unfair tax system.  More than 40 percent don’t pay any income taxes—mostly folks in the lower half and among the truly wealthy who don’t have much wage income but have lots of tax sheltered investments. Yet many middle class Americans—who work 60 hour weeks—fork over 30, 40 or closer to 50 percent to Uncle Sam, and that kills incentives to invest and take risks among entrepreneurs.

It’s only fair that everyone pay something and that upper income folks pay more. Mr. Romney has to explain how he is going to accomplish that and still incentivize entrepreneurs to create jobs, while ensuring that the likes of Warren Buffett pay up and not just pontificate—remember Mr. Buffett does not have to avail himself of all the shelters, special breaks and loopholes he holds in such pious disdain.

That’s tough for Mr. Romney who has taken particular advantage of the tax code’s many arcane provisions, but everyone loves a repentant sinner.

As long as Mr. Romney explains how his program will tax his fortune at rates Mr. Obama reserves for mere mortals, and that what he proposes will really create jobs, America—the lefties in academia and the media notwithstanding—will forgive his transgressions and hop on board.

A better future for our children requires an America that can compete, and America can’t choose what it is capable of doing well. Nature, culture and globalization provide the mandates.

Like it or not, America is an energy rich and technologically innovative nation—like it or not, developing resources and manufacturing are where the next president must take America—even if Ivy League academics think we should all be poets and hedge-fund managers with guaranteed access to mental health professionals.

President Obama’s policies of locking down oil and gas development in the Gulf, off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, and in Alaska, as well as nixing the Keystone Pipeline and other energy infrastructure projects, is akin to Hawaii outlawing tourism.

Mr. Romney sets a high priority on developing this natural wealth, which could easily create three million jobs during his first term, but that it won’t just benefit Exxon and its rich rivals.

North Carolina and California steel, Ohio and Mississippi machinery, and New York and Washington software all would participate and create great, high paying jobs for ordinary folks—Mr. Romney needs to spell out how.

Similarly, Mr. Romney’s criticism of China sounds too protectionist and too backward looking. Women, who stretch the family dollar to feed and clothe the country, rightly fear higher prices at Target and Kohl’s.

Mr. Romney needs to show that truly leveling the playing field with the Middle Kingdom will not endanger imports of good-value products made from China’s inexpensive labor, but a better deal on trade would create more abundant opportunities where American technology trumps— advanced metals and synthetic materials, medical technology, auto parts, sophisticated communications equipment, and software.

All that would be good for another five million jobs—no problem.

Mr. Romney can win big by making clear how he can deliver a fairer and more prosperous America—a one where hope is not about an envy tax on millionaires but good jobs for all in the private sector.

Read more:
Marco Rubio IS eligible to be Vice President
By: Diane Sori

As we get nearer to Mitt Romney becoming the Republican nominee for President, the name Marco Rubio has been in the forefront as a possible Vice Presidential pick.  However, with his name comes the issue raised by some of does he meet the requirement of being a ‘natural born citizen.’  This issue can be resolved by just reading the words of the Constitution itself...just reading the words as written, and NOT trying to change or reinterpret words that are clear and simple in their meaning.

Let me explain.

While we all know that status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is required to be President or Vice President of this country, NOWHERE, I repeat NOWHERE, in the Constitution does it define what is meant by the words ‘natural born citizen’.  Native born citizen is clearly defined...natural born is NOT defined at all.  Any and all attempts after the Constitution was adopted are simply supposition, just attempts by others to guess what the Founders meant and no more.

While Article 2 of the Constitution does state, “no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President,” the actual term ‘natural born citizen’ was ambiguous at best.  Some contend that anyone born inside the U.S. should be considered a natural born citizen, and the Congressional Research Service (CRS)* seems to back that view.  They have stated that:

"the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States, even to alien parents (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.”

And herein lies the key, and read these words carefully, “one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States, even to alien parents...”  Even to “alien parents,” as long as the child is born “in” the United States...that is the key phrase in Marco Rubio’s case.

Yes, it is true that Marco’s parents were NOT citizens at the time of his birth but there is NO doubt whatsoever that Marco Rubio was indeed born “in” the United States, in Miami in fact, as he has an indisputable birth certificate that proves just that.  His parents received their final naturalization papers in 1975, four years after Marco’ birth but there is NO denying that his “alien parents” parents were here legally, they came here through the legal process, they lived here legally, and they became citizens legally as per the requirements of that day.  So, yes they were “alien parents” at the time of Marco’s birth but the Congressional Research Service clearly states that ‘under the Constitution’ as long as the person in question was born here, having “alien parents” means nothing.

There is even more credence in Marco’s eligibility to becoming the Vice Presidential nominee.  Article Two: Section One, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President (or Vice President, as the same requirements apply) of the United States:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Now reread these words very carefully again, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...”  “At the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...” This again is a key phrase that allows Marco Rubio to be the Vice Presidential nominee.

Let me explain...the requirement to be ‘natural born’ was an attempt to alleviate the fears that foreign aristocrats might immigrate to the new nation, United States of America, and use their wealth and influence, and power to impose a monarchy upon the people, a monarchy, the very rule of government that the Founders were opposed to.

So to make sure this did not happen, as they were laying the foundations of the laws of our land that would became our Constitution, the Founders made it clear that at the time of the “Adoption of this Constitution” that no one NOT born on United States soil would be eligible to become president, because they feared that England might still try to destroy the emerging nation from within by ‘planting’ a person of their choosing within the emerging ranks of leaders.  

To break it down even further, this phrase uses the term ‘natural born’ in context only to the time in which the Constitution was being adopted and makes NO reference to ‘natural born’ in context to later years.

Now also take into account the words, “...have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”  (Marco Rubio was born here and has lived here his entire life, and is over 35 years of age.)  “...and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”  “been fourteen Years a resident...” the word ‘resident’ contradicts the CRS’s interpretive ruling of having to “be born in” or did they take into account in their ruling that the Founders, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, realized that since the nation was new that maybe some who aspired to the presidency might have been born in England or elsewhere but came here as a child...hmmm, we will never know for sure. 

And even in certain court cases that came after the adoption of the Constitution concerning the meaning of ‘natural born citizen,’ like Lynch v. Clarke, the court cited the Constitution and said:

“Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution?  I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.”

And it went on to state:

“Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.”

Also, Joseph Story, an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1811-1845), wrote in his 1840 guidebook to the Constitution (A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States), about the natural-born-citizen clause:

“It is not too much to say that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be entrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people.”  Note the words ‘native citizen NOT natural citizen.

Even the highly respected Black's Law Dictionary defines "Natural Born Citizen" as "a person born within the jurisdiction of a national government."  Understand the words, ‘a person born within’ NOT a person’s parents having been born within.

Ruling after ruling, including this fairly recent memorandum to Congress dated April 3, 2009, written by the afore mentioned Congressional Research Service (CRS), states:

“Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth."

So with all the information I have presented, it should be clear to all that Senator Marco Rubio IS indeed eligible to be tapped by Mitt Romney to be his Vice Presidential running mate, if Romney so chooses and Marco Rubio so excepts.

*The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation.  As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, the CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for nearly a century.

Do you know why Earth Day is April 22?

Clue: it didn't start as a celebration of butterflies, recycling and solar energy

 By Kevin DeAnna



School children, businesses, clergy, politicians and even the United States military soon will honor the birthday of Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Soviet Union.

Of course, they will call it Earth Day.

Brian Sussman points out in his explosive new book, “Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda will Dismantle America,” that the first nationwide Earth Day was held April 22, 1970, the 100th anniversary of the birth of the communist Bolshevik leader.

The “nationwide teach in” was spearheaded by Democratic Sen. Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin and college professor Paul Ehrlich.

Ehrlich had just written the “Population Bomb” in 1968, which famously – and falsely – predicted, “In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Building on the idea, Ehrlich went on to advocate “brutal and heartless decisions” to solve the “problem” of overpopulation.

Comparing humanity to a cancer, he stated, “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. … We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”

Ehrlich went on to add, “We must have population control at home, hopefully through changes in our value system, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail.”

Inspired by the book, Nelson met with Ehrlich and came up with the idea of the “nationwide teach in” with the purpose of tapping the “environmental concerns of the general public and infuse the student anti-war energy into the environmental cause.”

Nelson selected campus anti-war and left-wing activist Denis Hayes to coordinate efforts for the first “Earth Day.” Hayes later would brag to the New York Times how he fled overseas because “he had to get away from America” and refused to print bumper stickers for the event because “they go on automobiles.”

Organized by radical student activists, built on the model of left-wing “teach-ins” at American universities, and created with the objective of furthering progressive activism, Sussman notes that the movement for Earth Day took to heart Lenin’s adage, “Give us the child for eight years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.”

However, Sussman exposes in “Eco-Tyranny” that the Bolshevik influence goes beyond tactics. After implementing his tyrannical rule over Russia in the October Revolution, Lenin issued a Decree on Land within his first year as Communist Party chairman. The decree declared that all forests, waters and minerals were property of the state.

Lenin also issued the decree “On Hunting Seasons and the Right to Possess Hunting Weapons,” which banned hunting moose and wild goats and ended open seasons for a variety of other animals.

Another resolution adopted by the Soviet government titled “On the Protection of Nature, Gardens, and Parks” established zapovedniki, or human-free nature preserves.

Despite the poverty of the people under Soviet rule, Lenin decided that it better served the national interest to place the rich natural resources of the area beyond human reach.

Sussman summarizes, “During Lenin’s reign, Russia initiated the most audacious nature conservancy program in the twentieth century. Starting with a vision created by Marx 50 years prior, Lenin had successfully implemented version one of the green agenda. His accomplishments would eventually … [be] celebrated the world over each April.”

Today, Earth Day is the most widely celebrated secular holiday in the world, with almost every major American institution paying it some sort of recognition in spite of its extreme origins. Despite the mainstreaming of Lenin’s anniversary celebration, left-wing activists honor the true history of the holiday by attacking property rights and human economic activity.

For example, as part of “Earth Week direct action,” Occupy DC protesters have been storming private businesses and trade associations such as the American Natural Gas Association.

However, this is only an echo of the plans the Obama administration has to restrict land ownership, American energy production and economic activity.

As Sussman reveals in Eco-Tyranny, the Obama administration has been pushing aggressively to seize hundreds of thousands of acres, as documented by secret memos from within the administration.

Sussman also shows how wealthy progressive activists and Democratic politicians are pushing to create American versions of the zapovedniki by creating human-free “wildlife corridors,” while Americans are forced to settle into highly regulated, heavily populated “megaregions.”

Sussman states in “Eco-Tyranny” that “socialism’s green flag [has achieved] great success with [its] devious agenda … even in America.” On April 22, the entire country will join in socialism’s celebration.

Ira Einhorn, who claims to have been on stage to host the first Earth Day event at the Fairmount Park in Philadelphia, currently is serving prison time for the beating death of his ex-girlfriend, Holly Maddux.

He fled to Europe after her body was discovered in a trunk in a closet in his apartment. He spent years there and was convicted in absentia before being extradited to the U.S. in 2001 after an extended court battle.

In a statement from Earth Day organizers, they denied Einhorn’s claims to have founded the event, saying, “He is a fraud.”