Voters’ verdict explodes 5 Democratic myths

Voters’ verdict explodes 5 Democratic myths

BY BYRON YORK | NOVEMBER 5, 2014 | 8:30 AM

 MYTHS
 As Democratic losses mounted in Senate races across the country on election night, some liberal commentators clung to the idea that dissatisfied voters were sending a generally anti-incumbent message, and not specifically repudiating Democratic officeholders. But the facts of the election just don’t support that story.

Voters replaced Democratic senators with Republicans in Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia and likely in Alaska, and appear on track to do so in a runoff next month in Louisiana. At the same time, voters kept Republicans in GOP seats in heavily contested races in Georgia, Kansas and Kentucky. That is at least 10, and as many as a dozen, tough races, without a single Republican seat changing hands. Tuesday’s voting was a wave alright — a very anti-Democratic wave.

1) The election wouldn’t be a referendum on President Obama. “Barack Obama was on the ballot in 2012 and in 2008,” Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in late October. “The candidates that are on the ballot are Democratic and Republican candidates for Congress.” Of course, that was true, but Republicans from New Hampshire to Alaska worked tirelessly to put the president figuratively on the ballot. And they succeeded.

Every day on the stump, Republican candidates pressed the point that their Democratic opponents voted for the Obama agenda nearly all the time. “Kay Hagan has voted for President Obama’s failed partisan agenda 95 percent of the time,” said Thom Tillis, who defeated the incumbent Democrat in North Carolina. Mark Pryor “votes with Barack Obama 93 percent of the time,” said Tom Cotton, who defeated the incumbent Democrat in Arkansas. “Mark Udall has voted with [Obama] 99 percent of the time,” said Cory Gardner, who defeated the incumbent Democrat in Colorado.

On Election Day, nearly 60 percent of voters told exit pollsters they were dissatisfied or angry with the Obama administration. In retrospect, there was no more effective campaign strategy for Republicans running in 2014 than to tie an opponent to the president.

Obamacare poison

2) Obamacare wouldn’t matter. Many Democrats and their liberal supporters in the press believed that the president’s healthcare plan, a year into implementation, would not be a major factor in the midterms. But Republican candidates ignored the liberal pundits and pounded away on Obamacare anyway — and it contributed to their success.

“In our polling, [Obamacare] continues to be just as hot as it’s been all year long,” said a source in the campaign of Tom Cotton, who won a Senate seat handily in Arkansas, in an interview about ten days before the election. “If you look at a word cloud of voters’ biggest hesitation in voting for Mark Pryor, the two biggest words are ‘Obama’ and ‘Obamacare.’ Everything after that is almost an afterthought.” Other winning GOP candidates pushed hard on Obamacare, too. Tillis in North Carolina, Gardner in Colorado, Joni Ernst in Iowa, and several others made opposition to Obamacare a central part of their campaigns.

harry

3) An improving economy would limit Democrats’ losses. In the few places he felt confident and welcome enough to campaign, Obama devoted much of his appeal to citing the economic progress his administration has made: jobs created, growth, healthcare costs, corporate regulation.

The election results were pretty definitive proof that voters are not feeling the progress Obama feels has been made. Most importantly, it is an unhappy fact that a significant part of the decline in the unemployment rate under Obama has been the result of discouraged workers giving up the search for employment altogether. Indeed, in exit polls, nearly 70 percent of voters expressed negative feelings about the economy, many years into the Obama recovery.

republican-senator-joni-ernst

4) Women would save Democrats. There were times when the midterm Senate campaigns seemed entirely devoted to seeking the approval of women voters. The Udall campaign in Colorado was almost a parody of such an appeal to women, focusing so extensively on contraception and abortion that the Denver Post called it an “obnoxious one-issue campaign.”

Beyond Udall, most Democrats hoped a gender gap would boost them to victory. As it turned out, there was a gender gap in Tuesday’s voting, but it favored Republicans. Exit polls showed that Democrats won women by seven points, while Republicans won men by 13 points. The numbers are definitive proof that, contrary to much conventional wisdom, Democrats have a bigger gender gap problem than the GOP. The elections showed precisely the opposite of what Democrats hoped they would.

Landrieu

5) The ground game would power Democrats to victory. When all else failed — and all else seemed to fail in the campaign’s final days — Democrats believed that a superior ability to get voters to the polls would be their margin of victory, or at the very least would limit Democratic losses. After all, the Obama campaigns of 2008 and 2012 had run rings around Republicans in voter contact and get-out-the-vote technology.

It didn’t turn out that way. Republicans had upped their game; the party invested millions in an improved turnout machine, and it appears to have passed its first test. At the same time, Democrats failed to conjure that 2008 and 2012 turnout magic in 2014. “The Obama coalition that propelled the president to two victories remained cohesive, drawing on minorities, younger voters as well as women,” the Wall Street Journal reported. “But Democratic efforts to boost turnout among younger and minority voters fell short.”

repudiation

Perhaps most importantly, Democrats learned that a solid turnout effort could not overcome the drag of Obama, Obamacare, the economy, and a generalized unhappiness with the state of the country under the Obama administration.

In the end, Tuesday’s vote represented a repudiation of virtually every notion Democrats embraced in recent weeks as they tried to disregard the growing evidence that they were headed for a historic defeat. Now, the vote is in, and the voters’ message can no longer be discounted.

3 reasons why you must vote against every democratic candidate that supported Obama

 three reasons facebook

3 reasons why you must vote against every democratic candidate that supported Obama

Reason 1:  Obama and his policies is the Ebola virus to American liberty:  For America to survive, Obama’s policies must be utterly repudiated.   Like a killer frost, Obama has damaged everything he has touched.   He meant to hurt us.  His policies are designed to do keep doing damage long after he is gone.

With malice and forethought he shamed us abroad, divided us at home and, as no one before him, cast a shroud over the nation’s future.  The proof that his platform is wholly destructive is this fact: any city or state that has fully implemented his agenda has watched poverty, crime, and addiction skyrocket.

America will simply not survive the train wreck tomfoolery of this administration.  It all has to go.

Reason 2:   When they say they are not like Obama, they are being just like Obama.   When they say they are different than Obama it is another reason to oust them.   When they are lying, denying, deflecting and insulting our intelligence by asking for another chance they are being the quintessential Obama.

No one in the Democratic Party has apologized for their crimes against freedom, morality, and prosperity.  No one rose up and opposed the madness.  This means that they still don’t get it.  You simply cannot vote for anyone who had a hand in this devastation or is a threat to continue the devastation. 

obamaaloof

 

Reason 3:  This is probably your last chance to demonstrate your Christianity in an election:  Liberty is on the ropes.  Government has seized control of almost everything.  Operatives within the Democratic Party want to keep power no matter what they have to do to keep it.   Stop the tyranny now or they will think that they can do anything they want.

It is disgusting that Pastors voted and campaigned for Obama in two elections!  This is your chance to repent and do the right thing for the nation and your congregation.  It is likely your last chance.

For minority Christians that voted for Obama for cell phones, government assistance or to legalize relatives I have a simple question… what will you do when the money is gone, the law is useless and America is worse than the nation they escaped?

For the lukewarm Christian who would rather remain silent I have a question:   If you don’t have the courage to speak out now… how will you find the courage to live under persecution?

Never have the stakes been higher.  Never has the choice been clearer.  Silence is not an option.   Get mad, get informed and get going.  Vote them out.

A Letter to 60,000 Ministers threatens IRS Action Against Pastors who speak out against Obama and Democrats

 

Businessman with Tape over Mouth

 

Americans United for Separation of Church and State Tries To Scare Churches.

 

Americans United for Separation of Church and State recently announced that it sent over 60,000 letters to churches across the country, warning them from becoming involved in “partisan politicking” during this election season. The letter tries to intimidate churches by ominously warning “If the IRS determines that your house of worship has engaged in unlawful intervention, it can revoke the institution’s tax-exempt status or levy significant fines on the house of worship or its leaders.”

Letters like this are a favorite tactic of AU. For years now, it has attempted to intimidate churches into silence during election season. But here’s the problem. AU is using an unconstitutional law to try and intimidate and scare churches.

The Johnson Amendment, upon which AU bases its letter, is blatantly unconstitutional. Under the First Amendment, the pastor has the right to determine what is said from the pulpit, not the IRS.

It’s ironic that an organization committed to the “separation of church and state” is arguing for more governmental monitoring and control of churches and pastors. AU wants the IRS to monitor a pastor’s sermon, and to censor that pastor if the IRS agent happens to think that the pastor crosses the line. This is especially problematic because the line of what is prohibited under the Johnson Amendment is very fuzzy. That makes it convenient for AU to argue that churches have crossed the line when in fact they have not.

It’s time to remove the Johnson Amendment from the hands of AU. It has been used as a weapon of intimidation against churches for far too long.

View the letter for yourself:

Threat (1)

The Democratic Assault on the First Amendment

TedCruz

The Democratic Assault on the First Amendment

Congress has too much power already; it should not have the power to silence citizens.

 

June 1, 2014 6:35 p.m. ET
For two centuries there has been bipartisan agreement that American democracy depends on free speech. Alas, more and more, the modern Democratic Party has abandoned that commitment and has instead been trying to regulate the speech of the citizenry.
We have seen President Obama publicly rebuke the Supreme Court for protecting free speech in Citizens United v. FEC; the Obama IRS inquire of citizens what books they are reading and what is the content of their prayers; the Federal Communications
Commission proposing to put government monitors in newsrooms; and Sen. Harry Reid regularly slandering private citizens on the Senate floor for their political speech.But just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, it does. Senate Democrats have promised a vote this year on a constitutional amendment to expressly repeal the free-speech protections of the First Amendment.
You read that correctly. Forty-one Democrats have signed on to co-sponsor New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall’s proposed amendment to give Congress plenary power to regulate political speech. The text of the amendment says that Congress could regulate “the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections.” The amendment places no limitations whatsoever on Congress’s new power.

Two canards are put forth to justify this broad authority. First, “money is not speech.” And second, “corporations have no free speech rights.”

Neither contention bears even minimal scrutiny. Speech is more than just standing on a soap box yelling on a street corner. For centuries the Supreme Court has rightly concluded that free speech includes writing and distributing pamphlets, putting up billboards, displaying yard signs, launching a website, and running radio and television ads. Every one of those activities requires money. Distributing the Federalist Papers or Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” required money. If you can prohibit spending money, you can prohibit virtually any form of effective speech.

As for the idea that the Supreme Court got it wrong in Citizens Unite d because corporations have no First Amendment rights, that too is demonstrably false. The New York Times  is a corporation. The television network NBC is a corporation. Book publisher Simon & Schuster is a corporation. Paramount Pictures is a corporation. Nobody would reasonably argue that Congress could restrict what they say—or what money they spend distributing their views, books or movies—merely because they are not individual persons.

Dem

Proponents of the amendment also say it would just “repeal Citizens United” or “regulate big money in politics.” That is nonsense. Nothing in the amendment is limited to corporations, or to nefarious billionaires. It gives Congress power to regulate—and ban—speech by everybody.

Indeed, the text of the amendment obliquely acknowledges that Americans’ free-speech rights would be eliminated: It says “[n]othing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.” Thus, the New York Times is protected from congressional power; individual citizens, exercising political speech, are not.

If this amendment were adopted, the following would likely be deemed constitutional:

Congress could prohibit the National Rifle Association from distributing voter guides letting citizens know politicians’ records on the Second Amendment.

Congress could prohibit the Sierra Club from running political ads criticizing politicians for their environmental policies.

Congress could penalize pro-life (or pro-choice) groups for spending money to urge their views of abortion.

Congress could prohibit labor unions from organizing workers (an in-kind expenditure) to go door to door urging voters to turn out.

Congress could criminalize pastors making efforts to get their parishioners to vote.

Congress could punish bloggers expending any resources to criticize the president.

Congress could ban books, movies (watch out Michael Moore ) and radio programs—anything not deemed “the press”—that might influence upcoming elections.

One might argue, “surely bloggers would be protected.” But Senate Democrats expressly excluded bloggers from protection under their proposed media-shield law, because bloggers are not “covered journalists.

One might argue, “surely movies would be exempt.” But the Citizens United case—expressly maligned by President Obama during his 2010 State of the Union address—concerned the federal government trying to fine a filmmaker for distributing a movie criticizing Hillary Clinton.

One might argue, “surely books would be exempt.” But the Obama administration, in theCitizens United oral argument, explicitly argued that the federal government could ban books that contained political speech.

The contemplated amendment is simply wrong. No politician should be immune from criticism. Congress has too much power already—it should never have the power to silence citizens.

Thankfully, any constitutional amendment must first win two-thirds of the vote in both houses of Congress. Then three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve the proposed amendment. There’s no chance that Sen. Udall’s amendment will clear either hurdle. Still, it’s a reflection of today’s Democratic disrespect for free speech that an attempt would even be made. There was a time, not too long ago, when free speech was a bipartisan commitment.

John Stuart Mill had it right: If you disagree with political speech, the best cure is more speech, not less. The First Amendment has served America well for 223 years. When Democrats tried something similar in 1997, Sen. Ted Kennedy was right to say: “In the entire history of the Constitution, we have never amended the Bill of Rights, and now is no time to start.”

‘Duck Dynasty’ Star: ‘If We Don’t Turn To God At A Pretty Rapid Clip, We’re Going To Lose The United States Of America’

News

‘Duck Dynasty’ Star: ‘If We Don’t Turn To God At A Pretty Rapid Clip, We’re Going To Lose The United States Of America’

"Duck Dynasty" star Phil Robertson greets fans in the Duck Commander Compound at Texas Motor Speedway on April 5, 2014 in Fort Worth, Texas. (credit: Jerry Markland/Getty Images for Texas Motor Speedway)

“Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson greets fans in the Duck Commander Compound at Texas Motor Speedway on April 5, 2014 in Fort Worth, Texas. (credit: Jerry Markland/Getty Images for Texas Motor Speedway)

 NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Republicans are poised for successful midterm elections, but many of the party’s most conservative activists are looking ahead to something bigger.

“We need to save this country in 2016,” Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus told the opening session of the 2014 Republican Leadership Conference on Thursday.

The annual event has grown into an opportunity for rising GOP stars to address some of the most conservative rank-and-file party faithful who influence the presidential nomination process.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal kicked of the list of White House hopefuls, delighting delegates by skewering President Barack Obama as “the most ideologically liberal” and “most incompetent president of our lifetimes.” Delegates will hear Friday and Saturday from tea party hero Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, 2012 presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and others.

Jindal previewed what his presidential campaign pitch might look like, should he run, explaining his statewide private school tuition voucher program, privatization of the state’s public hospital system and a series of tax cuts as examples of a conservative renaissance in his state.

Jindal noted that the Obama administration sued unsuccessfully to block the tuition program, a move the governor called “cynical, immoral, hypocritical.” He also used some barbs at Obama to take indirect swipes at some of his potential White House rivals like Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

“We’re watching on-the-job training,” Jindal said, because “we have a president who’d never run anything before.”

Governors, he said, make the best presidents, pointing to Republican Ronald Reagan and Democrat Bill Clinton.

Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin made a surprise appearance, helping introduce Phil Robertson, patriarch of cable television’s “Duck Dynasty.” Robertson has become a cultural icon for many conservative because of his outspoken Christian faith and commentary on sexuality, including opposition to same-sex marriage.

He mostly stayed clear of partisan politics. He blasted separation of church and state and called abortion a “blight” on society. He drew applause and shouts of “Amen” in calling for a national Christian revival and describing himself as a “Christocrat.”

“If we don’t turn to God at a pretty rapid clip,” he said, “we’re going to lose the United States of America.”

Neither Rubio nor Paul is scheduled to speak at the three-day gathering. Two of Jindal’s fellow governors — Chris Christie of New Jersey and Scott Walker of Wisconsin — also are skipping it.

The conference comes as Republicans campaign to win complete control of Capitol Hill for the final two years of Obama’s tenure. The GOP is favored to retain its House majority and has a strong chance of winning a Senate majority to control all of Capitol Hill for the final two years of Obama’s term.

But delegates here, many of them festooned in red, white and blue, were brimming with talk of 2016.

While Priebus joined in the cheerleading, the chairman reprised his frequent call for the party to get better at the nuts and bolts of campaigning — from corralling a free-for-all primary process to reaching into minority communities that overwhelmingly support Democrats — before even thinking about who the 2016 nominee should be.

“We have a tale of two parties,” Priebus said. “We have a midterm party that doesn’t lose, and we have a presidential party that’s having a hard time winning.”

He noted obvious voter demographics that show Republican nominees must attract more young and minority voters. But public opinion polls also suggest that the party’s conservative positions — and its candidates’ emphasis — on issues like immigration, abortion and same-sex marriage are liabilities with some of the very groups they want to win over.

The chairman avoided saying the party should change any of its positions. “It’s not my job to write legislation,” he said, though he added later that “we could emphasize different things,” such as expanding school choice or loan programs for minority entrepreneurs. Whatever the policy, he said, “we have to show up and make the argument,” rather than concede swaths of the electorate.

Roy Luke, a retired Air Force master sergeant from Augusta, Ga., said the party’s problem is “more about image than substance.”

Luke argued that younger voters are eager to hear economic growth arguments from Republicans, while religiously conservative Latinos agree with the party’s socially conservative stances. “These are all Republicans,” he said, emphatically. “They just don’t know it yet.”

 

Has a man ever delivered a baby?’

Health_Overhaul_Problems-00e09_image_982w

Here is a report of how it is going so far at the Sebelius hearing

Ellmers: ‘…has a man ever delivered a baby?’

Sebelius had a sharp exchange with Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), who asked if it was true that under the Affordable Care Act, men would have to buy maternity coverage?

“This is why premiums are going up, because we are forcing people to buy coverage they will never need,” Ellmers said.

Sebelius responded that insurance policies cover many things people may never need, and that many of these men may need such coverage for their spouses.

“To your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?” Ellmers asked before the chairman cut her off because she had run out of time.

 

Hearing may continue for a while

In an indication that the hearing may go on for a while longer, Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) told Sebelius that he was going to try to get her out of there by 12:30 p.m. Chuckles arose from the room.

“Is that a joke?” Sebelius said.

Sandhya Somashekhar
12:20 PM

Gardner to Sebelius: ‘Why aren’t you losing your insurance?’

Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) told Sebelius that he and his family buy their health insurance on the private market, and like other people in his boat, got a notice saying his plan was being discontinued this year. He said he chose to reject his congressional insurance to be more like people in his district.

“Why aren’t you losing your insurance?” he demanded of Sebelius. “Why won’t you go into this exchange?”

Sebelius responded that she is not eligible, because people who get affordable coverage through their employer may not apply through the marketplace.

“I would urge you to be like the American people,” he said, before asking for a waiver from the health-care law for his Colorado district.

Gardner also referenced this ad from Colorado.

Sandhya Somashekhar
12:14 PM

We’re off to see the wizard…

Several members of the Energy and Commerce Committee compared the launch of Obamacare to the classic movie “The Wizard of Oz.”

“There is a famous movie called the ‘Wizard of Oz,’ and in the ‘Wizard of Oz’ there is a great line,” said Rep. Joe Barton, (R-Tex.). “Dorothy at some point in the movie turns to her little dog Toto and says, ‘Toto, we’re not in Kansas anymore.’”

“Well, Madam Secretary, while you’re from Kansas, we’re not in Kansas anymore. Some might say that we are actually in the ‘Wizard of Oz’ land given the parallel universes we appear to be habitating.”

Sebelius did not seem amused by the Kansas reference.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas), Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and  Rep.  Greg Harper (R-Miss.) also made references to the “Wizard of Oz.”

Pompeo said that when the characters in the “Wizard” got to the end of the yellow brick road, “at the end of the day, and they pulled back the curtain,” what they found wasn’t any different than something they already had.

Vincent Bzdek
12:06 PM

Sebelius: Obama not responsible for botched Obamacare rollout

(AP Photo/ Evan Vucci)

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said Wednesday that President Obama is not responsible for the botched rollout of his signature health care law.

“No, sir,” Sebelius said when asked directly whether Obama is responsible at a House hearing.

Instead, Sebelius pointed to the department she leads, HHS.

“We are responsible for the rollout,” she said.

French court rejects 75 percent millionaires’ tax

French court rejects 75 percent millionaires’ tax

France's President Francois Hollande speaks at a news conference at the end of the first session of a two-day European Union (EU) leaders summit in Brussels October 19, 2012. REUTERS/Christian Hartmann

By Emile Picy and Catherine Bremer

PARIS | Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:25am EST

(Reuters) – France’s Constitutional Council on Saturday rejected a 75 percent upper income tax rate to be introduced in 2013 in a setback to Socialist President Francois Hollande’s push to make the rich contribute more to cutting the public deficit.

The Council ruled that the planned 75 percent tax on annual income above 1 million euros ($1.32 million) – a flagship measure of Hollande’selection campaign – was unfair in the way it would be applied to different households.

Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said the government would redraft the upper tax rate proposal to answer the Council’s concerns and resubmit it in a new budget law, meaning Saturday’s decision could only amount to a temporary political blow.

While the tax plan was largely symbolic and would only have affected a few thousand people, it has infuriated high earners in France, prompting some such as actor Gerard Depardieu to flee abroad. The message it sent also shocked entrepreneurs and foreign investors, who accuse Hollande of being anti-business.

Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici said the rejection of the 75 percent tax and other minor measures could cut up to 500 million euros in forecast tax revenues but would not hurt efforts to slash the public deficit to below a European Union ceiling of 3 percent of economic output next year.

“The rejected measures represent 300 to 500 million euros. Our deficit-cutting path will not be affected,” Moscovici told BFM television. He too said the government would resubmit a proposal to raise taxes on high incomes in 2013 and 2014.

The Council, made up of nine judges and three former presidents, is concerned the tax would hit a married couple where one partner earned above a million euros but it would not affect a couple where each earned just under a million euros.

UMP member Gilles Carrez, chairman of the National Assembly’s finance commission, told BFM television, however, that the Council’s so-called wise men also felt the 75 percent tax was excessive and too much based on ideology.

FRANCE UNDER SCRUTINY

Hollande shocked many by announcing his 75 percent tax proposal out of the blue several weeks into a campaign that some felt was flagging. Left-wing voters were cheered by it but business leaders warned that talent would flee the country.

Set to be a temporary measure until France is out of economic crisis, the few hundred million euros a year the tax was set to raise is a not insignificant sum as the government strives to boost public finances in the face of stalled growth.

Hollande’s 2013 budget calls for the biggest belt-tightening effort France has seen in decades and is based on a growth target of 0.8 percent, a level analysts view as over-optimistic.

Fitch Ratings this month affirmed its triple-A rating on France but said there was no room for slippage. Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s have both stripped Europe’s No. 2 economy of its AAA badge due to concern over strained public finances and stalled growth.

The International Monetary Fund recently forecast that France will miss its 3 percent deficit target next year and signs are growing that Paris could negotiate some leeway on the timing of that goal with its EU partners.

The INSEE national statistics institute this week scaled back its reading of a return to growth in the third quarter to 0.1 percent from 0.2 percent, and the government said it could review its 2013 outlook in the next few months.

Saturday’s decision was in response to a motion by the opposition conservative UMP party, whose weight in fighting Hollande’s policies has been reduced by a leadership crisis that has split it in two seven months after it lost power.

The Constitutional Council is a politically independent body that rules on whether laws, elections and referenda are constitutional.

The end of an empire.

It is time for Christians in America to face reality.  The nation that you and I grew up in is gone.  The change that took place on November 6th is far greater than any of us understand.  The republic that was founded in 1776 by the Declaration of Independence, the nation that was based upon the Constitution was removed. 

What the Civil War, the Great Depression and a host of other historic disasters could not do was done    by the strangest of all events.   Millions believe that this was a rigged election decided not by votes alone but by a confederation Labor Unions, Television Networks, Government workers, shady foreign money interests that we cannot know.

We will also never know how a vacuous man with false credentials, failed policies, and zero executive skills is back in the White House.  But we do know that it is beyond fishy how he bungled and displayed arrogance about his bungling in a way that someone would only if they knew that the fix was in.

His performance in the debate, the Benghazi cover up, the unemployment rate, all are disasters.  Anyone of these, by themselves would have cost a candidate the election in the real America.  But in the new Amerika, all three of these and a hundred added outrages are not enough to stop his agenda.

What can we do as believers?  Face the fact that revival is no longer a blissful option.  It is the greatest hope for us to return to being a free nation.  In the coming days I will be sharing my heart with all who will listen about guidance from the Holy Spirit on these matters.

Now read this editorial from a Canadian newspaper about out election.

The End of an Empire

Our Constitutional Republic died a peaceful death on November 6, 2012. Having reached the point of no return in a comatose state after years of progressive and illegal immigration assaults, the fabric of conservative society is now completely unraveled and Uncle Sam’s America is no more. The United States of America is now relegated to the dust bin of history as a “has been” empire. The Shining City on the Hill, the hope of so many millions since July 4, 1776, no longer exists. What rises from the ashes is a country that few of us will recognize, like, or learn to accept submissively.  After 236 years of existence, a new country emerges today, run by secular progressives who rejected our Constitution, what we stand for, and who we are as a nation. The Supreme Court will be forever altered after its last conservative members will be replaced by the liberal academics who call themselves “progressives.” The rule of law will be implemented by Executive Orders, making Congress irrelevant.

The communist motto “Forward” that resonated with so many ignorant Americans will plunge us into many years of darkness

The communist motto “Forward” that resonated with so many ignorant Americans will plunge us into many years of darkness from which we will never be able to recover. We have proven our Founding Fathers right, they did give us a Constitutional Republic and we were unable to maintain it.

The forces of the failed communist fundamental transformation that were driven underground in many places around the world, resurfaced with a vengeance in the United States and have now taken over.  How long we will still have freedom of speech, movement, assembly, and control of our private property remains to be seen. Faith and churches will be driven underground; allowing secularism to prosper and take deep roots among the progressives whose God is Mother Earth.

The welfare dependent Americans, unions, and illegal aliens have chosen for the rest of us the dark path of serfdom

The welfare dependent Americans, unions, and illegal aliens have chosen for the rest of us the dark path of serfdom to big government and to socialist utopia. Who would have guessed that the very people who were complaining that the government is not extricating them from disaster or giving them the help they needed in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, would vote for the very politicians who turned their backs on needy Americans after the lights went dark when the political photo opportunities ended?

Who would have guessed that Americans were as ignorant and irresponsible as to choose fiscal destruction over fiscal sanity for their children and grandchildren, secularism and communism over faith, dependence over personal responsibility and self-reliance? Americans have been protesting for the last four years the dismal state of the economy and the direction of our country, the corruption of our politicians, and the loss of personal and economic freedom.

Rallies in support of conservatism overwhelmed venues for Mitt Romney while rallies for our bumbling President became scarcer and scarcer. Yet, miraculously, at the ballot box, our President won all over the country.

We lost seats in the Senate. Americans chose liars and cheats to be their Senators and Representatives, rejecting those who protected the Constitution. The candidate from Massachusetts who claimed direct American Indian lineage to Pocahontas is now a Senator, having defeated Scott Brown. Representative Allen West lost his seat by a narrow margin to the infamous Wasserman Schultz from Florida. Americans chose high unemployment, reduction of our military, communist indoctrination of their children, and loss of personal freedoms unlike we have never seen before in this country.

I am saddened by the loss of millions and millions of American soldiers who have died to preserve freedom yet we lost it on November 6, 2012. Those buried in cemeteries around the world and at Arlington must be rolling in their graves today. We shamelessly allowed their sacrifice of blood and treasure to go in vain. We have no honor because we let down all the soldiers who fought in recent times and returned home limbless with lives shattered from physical and mental wounds of war. I mourn today the loss of my adopted country. I have fought hard over the last four years to prevent its overt and accelerated destruction but the darker forces stronger than many of us have overcome concerted efforts by millions of Americans to maintain the Republic. Mediocrity, sloth, godlessness, dependence, cowardice, using the law selectively or ignoring it, and hopeless corruption will define the new country. Only God can save us now with his mercy and grace

OBAMA ACCEPTS ‘OSAMA BIN LADEN’ DONATIONS

 

WND EXCLUSIVE

OBAMA ACCEPTS ‘OSAMA BIN LADEN’ DONATIONS

No block to foreign money – not even from dead terrorists

OSAMA BIN LADEN

WASHINGTON – Using a Pakistani Internet Protocol, or IP address, a disposable credit card and a fake address, “Osama bin Laden” has successfully donated twice to Barack Obama’s presidential re-election campaign.

The “Bin Laden” donations, actually made by WND staff, included a listed occupation of “deceased terror chief” and a stated employer of “al-Qaida.”

“Bin Laden” is currently set up on the official campaign website to contribute more to Obama’s campaign. The name is also registered as a volunteer.

Since the “foreign” contribution was sent, “Bin Laden’s” email address has received several solicitations from Obama’s campaign asking for more donations.

 

The apparently foreign-based contributions were conducted as a test after a flurry of media reports described the ability of foreigners to donate to the Obama campaign but not to Mitt Romney’s site, which has placed safeguards against such efforts.

The acceptance of foreign contributions is strictly illegal under U.S. campaign finance law.

One $15 donation was made at BarackObama.com using a confirmed Pakistani IP address. In other words, as far as the campaign website was concerned, the donation was openly identified electronically as coming from Pakistan.

Upon clicking the “donate” button, WND staff selected the $15 amount and were taken to a page on the campaign website asking for a first and last name, city, state, zip code, email address and phone number.

The information submitted was: “Osama bin Laden, 911 Jihad Way, Abbottabad, CA 91101.”

While the website only has options for U.S. states and zip codes, there is no mechanism in place on Obama’s website to verify the individual is actually located in that state or zip code, or even in the U.S.

The Obama campaign refuses to release the identification of donors who give less than $200

In the case of this donation, the 91101 zip code is real but corresponds to Pasadena, Calif., and not Abbottabad, the Pakistani city in which bin Laden was found holed up in a compound.

For a requested phone number, WND inputted the White House information line of (202) 456-2121.

The email address used to set up the donation account was osama4obama2012@gmail.com.

After clicking “next,” the website asked for an employer, occupation and a password to set up future donations. WND staff entered the occupation as “deceased terror chief” and the employer as “al-Qaida.”

The transaction was made last Friday with the use of a disposable credit card. The website did not require the card’s security code.

Screenshot from BarackObama.com

Screenshot from BarackObama.com

The campaign website immediately accepted the contribution even though it was made from a Pakistani IP address and despite the nonexistent street name and city information.

An automated email was immediately sent from Rufus Gifford, national finance director of Obama for America, thanking “Osama” for the contribution. The email contained a note that said, “There may be a minor delay in the processing of your contribution as it will be subject to review.” However, “Osama bin Laden’s” foreign donation evidently passed the Obama campaign’s “review.”

As of today, the $15 was debited from the disposable card.

To test if the first donation was an oversight, a second donation of $5 was made the following day using the “Bin Laden” account and the same Pakistani IP address.

WND has received confirmation from the credit card company that the purchase went through and the $5 was deducted from the disposable card.

From the time of the first donation until today, the Obama campaign sent nine more emails to the bin Laden Gmail account soliciting more donations.

One email sent Saturday reads, “Thanks so much for your donation of $5.00. Please take 10% off your next purchase of $10 or more at our online store.”

Another, signed by Michelle Obama, was titled “Barack is getting outraised.”

“You’re one of the campaign’s most committed supporters,” Michelle Obama writes in the automated email to “bin Laden.”

“Please make a donation of $19 or whatever you can today.”

The donations from a Pakistani IP address are sure to raise further questions about the measures in place to block such donations.

Cleta Mitchell, a Republican campaign finance attorney, told WND there were many documented cases of illegal foreign contributions to the Obama campaign in 2008 that were “wholly ignored by the Federal Election Commission and the Obama Department of Justice.”

“I have been hearing the same stories from many sources during this campaign as well,” she said. “Every other campaign has safeguards against these illegal transactions – every campaign except the Obama campaign.”

Mitchell told WND it’s “abundantly clear that the Obama campaign is raising and accepting illegal contributions – and is being protected from investigation by his politicized Department of Justice.”

“It is high time that this was investigated and all illegal funds disgorged – and those responsible be prosecuted,” she asserted.

In 2008, WND reported two Palestinian brothers inside the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip donated $29,521.54 to Obama’s first presidential campaign. After the report, the campaign reportedly returned the donations.

Last week, the New York Post reported a British citizen, Chris Walker, was able to make two $5 donations through Obama’s campaign website, while a similar attempt to give Mitt Romney online funds was rejected.

The Post noted how the Federal Election Commission posted data showing Obama’s campaign took in more than $2 million from donors who provided no ZIP code or incomplete ZIP codes.

Michael Czin, an Obama campaign spokesman, told the Post that FEC data was the result of “a minor technical error.”

“All the ZIP codes and numbers are real and can be verified,” Czin said.

However, if all zip codes are real, Czin has some explaining to do after the “Bin Laden” donation from a zip code based on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks.

The non-profit Government Accountability Institute recently released a report alleging Obama’s campaign had solicited foreigners for political donations through its social media websites.

As the Daily Caller reported, a statement accompanied the GAI’s report from former U.S. Attorney Ken Sukhia noting that 68 percent of traffic to BarackObama.com comes from foreign users, all of whom are redirected to a fundraising page operated by the president’s re-election campaign.

The GAI report further documented how Obama.com was registered in September 2008 to Robert Roche, an Obama campaign bundler living in Shanghai, China.

WND is preparing an affidavit for the Federal Elections Commission and the FBI on the illegal donation accepted by the Obama campaign.

Jefferson County ‘Democrat Of The Year’ Convicted Of Felony Theft

Jefferson County ‘Democrat Of The Year’ Convicted Of Felony Theft.

October 26, 2012 5:54 PM
Estelle Carson (credit: CBS)

Estelle Carson (credit: CBS)

JEFFERSON COUNTY, Colo. (CBS4)– The woman named “Democrat of The Year” this year by the Jefferson County Democratic Party has been convicted of felony theft by a Jefferson County jury for stealing from a developmentally disabled 71-year-old woman.

“The jury did right,” said Cindy Maxwell, an advocate for the victim.

On Thursday, a jury convicted 66-year-old Estelle Carson of felony identify theft and felony theft from an at risk adult for stealing checks from the woman and using them to pay her own cable, cell phone and internet bills.

The victim is partially blind, developmentally disabled, has cerebral palsy and is confined to a wheelchair. She is on a fixed income of $596 per month according to the Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office.

Nearly as bothersome as the theft itself to Maxwell and other supporters of the victim, is the fact the Jefferson County Democratic Party was made aware of the ongoing criminal investigation and honored Carson anyway.

According to documents obtained by CBS4, in November of 2011, the Jeffco Democratic Party announced it planned to honor Carson for her activism on behalf of Democratic causes and her efforts to register voters.

But three days before the January 8 gala, advocates for the victim contacted the party via email and phone informing them of the criminal investigation.

One wrote “I am completely appalled,” to learn of the planned honor. The woman suggested the Democratic Party should “un-invite Estelle and not follow through with this honor.”

Cindy Maxwell told CBS4 she informed Democratic Party officials that Carson had already confessed to the theft as part of the investigation.

But Chris Kennedy, chairman of the Jefferson County Democratic party, dismissed the concerns saying there was not a conviction and bestowed the “Democrat Of The Year” honor on Carson.

In an email following the event, Kennedy wrote, “After much consideration, my decision was that the award being presented by my organization and the alleged financial exploitation need to be compartmentalized, one having no bearing on the other. Thus I decided to present the award to Estelle.”

“I thought it was outrageous,” said Maxwell, “I was appalled.”

Kennedy reiterated to CBS4 that he went ahead with the award because Carson had only been accused, not convicted.

“I did not have reason to believe it was true,” said Kennedy.

Now that Carson has been convicted, Cindy Maxwell is asking the Jefferson County Democratic Party to rescind the honor.

“I’d like to see her stripped of that award. I have been a Democrat my entire life. I’m disappointed they would allow something like that to happen,” said Maxwell.

CBS4 called Estelle Carson but her voicemail message said her mailbox was full. She is due in court in December for sentencing. She faces a maximum of nine years in prison for the two felony charges.
– Written by Brian Maass for CBSDenver.com