OBAMA CAMPAIGN TEAM ARRIVES IN ISRAEL TO DEFEAT NETANYAHU IN MARCH ELECTIONS

Obama condemns Russia for allegedly interfering in our presidential election.  Look what he did in the election in Israel in January 2015.   OBAMA CAMPAIGN TEAM ARRIVES IN ISRAEL TO DEFEAT NETANYAHU IN MARCH ELECTIONS

 

OBAMA CAMPAIGN TEAM ARRIVES IN ISRAEL TO DEFEAT NETANYAHU IN MARCH ELECTIONS

Just days after the Obama White House accused House Speaker John Boehner of “breaking protocol” by inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress, a team of up to five Obama campaign operatives has reportedly arrived in Israel to lead a campaign to defeat the Israeli Prime Minister in upcoming national elections scheduled for March 17.

The anti-Netanyahu, left wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports a group called “One Voice,” reportedly funded by American donors, is paying for the Obama campaign team. That group is reportedly being led by Obama’s 2012 field director Jeremy Bird.

As Jerusalem Post columnist and putative Knesset candidate Caroline Glick reported on her Facebook page, “Obama won’t meet Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington when he addresses the Joint Houses of Congress in March because of Netanyahu’s visit’s proximity to the Israeli elections. And Obama, of course believes in protocol and propriety which is why he won’t get involved.” And yet, Glick adds, “He’s just sending his 2012 field campaign manager to Israel to run a campaign to defeat Netanyahu.”

For all the harsh accusations of foreign interference currently being leveled against GOP Speaker John Boehner, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer, reports of Obama operatives actively working to unseat a democratically elected leader of a strong U.S. ally is hardly the news it might appear to be.

The Obama White House has aggressively worked to defeat allied leaders it has not liked and to elect or re-elect foreign leaders it does like. As the Times of Israel recently reported, the list of Obama Administration meddling in foreign elections is a long one.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, an Obama Administration ally, was hosted at the White House prior to recent German elections. Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the left wing Labor Party visited 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, not once, but twice prior to British elections. Those were won by Conservative party leader David Cameron, who himself visited Washington last week at Obama’s invitation to lobby the U.S. Congress against adopting a new sanctions measure to help confront Iran’s burgeoning nuclear program. Oddly, that’s the very issue Obama and the mainstream media now roundly condemn John Boehner for involving himself in.

U Michigan Department Chair: We Should ‘Hate Republicans’

U Michigan Department Chair: We Should ‘Hate Republicans’

A professor explains that studies show the GOP is bad.

Katherine Timpf

A University of Michigan department chairwoman has published an article titled, “It’s Okay To Hate Republicans,” which will probably make all of her conservative students feel really comfortable and totally certain that they’re being graded fairly.

“I hate Republicans,” communications department chairwoman and professor Susan J. Douglas boldly declares in the opening of the piece. “I can’t stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legions of other blowhards denying climate change, thwarting immigration reform or championing fetal ‘personhood.’”

She writes that although the fact that her “tendency is to blame the Republicans . . . may seem biased,” historical and psychological research back her up, and so it’s basically actually a fact that Republicans are bad!

Douglas said that in the 1970s she did work for a Republican, Rhode Island’s senate minority leader Fred Lippitt, but she hates them all now because Lippitt was a “brand of Republican” who no longer exists in that he was “fiscally conservative but progressive about women’s rights, racial justice and environmental preservation.”Republicans now, she writes, are focused on the “determined vilification” of others, and have “crafted a political identity that rests on a complete repudiation of the idea that the opposing party and its followers have any legitimacy at all.”

(Apparently, the irony of this accusation given the content of her own article was lost on her.)

Douglas adds that Republicans are really good at being mean because studies have proven that they usually have psychological traits such as “dogmatism, rigidity and intolerance of ambiguity,” and that  “two core dimensions of conservative thought are resistance to change and support for inequality.”

“These, in turn, are core elements of social intolerance . . . which could certainly lead to a desire to deride those not like you — whether people of color, LGBT people or Democrats.”

“So now we hate them back,” she explains. “And with good reason.”

U of M’s anti-discrimination policy forbids “creating an intimidating, hostile, offensive, or abusive environment for that individual’s employment, education, living environment, or participation in a University activity.”

It seems as though, for a student who votes Republican, knowing you had a teacher who assumed you were an intolerant bigot and blatantly advocated for hating you would likely create an “intimidating” educational environment; however, the anti-discrimination policy only protects against discrimination against someone “because of that person’s race, color, national origin, age, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, religion, height, weight or veteran’s status.” (Basically anything except for political affiliation.)

Douglas declined an interview with National Review Online on Tuesday, saying she was “so sorry” but just too “buried with work and meetings today.” She assured that she really did enjoy working with Lippitt in the ’70s.

“[I] think it’s terrible we’ve come to this pass of such extreme mutual animus,” she wrote.

The university did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Boehner’s brutal speech: “An Affront to the Rule of Law and to the Constitution Itself”

Click to Play

WASHINGTON, DC – House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) spoke on the floor today in support of the House’s efforts to stop President Obama’s unilateral actions on immigration.  During his remarks, he directly quoted each of the 22 times the president said he didn’t have the authority to take this action:

“Let me thank all my colleagues who have worked to put this bill together.  Today I rise – and the House rises – to support and defend our Constitution.

“We do not take this action lightly, but simply there is no alternative.  This is not a dispute between the parties, or even between the branches of our government.  This executive overreach is an affront to the rule of law and to the Constitution itself.

“I appreciate all the efforts of those working to fix our broken immigration system, especially since I’m one of them.  But what we are dealing with is a president who has ignored the people, has ignored the Constitution, and even his own past statements.

“In fact, on at least 22 occasions, he said he did not have the authority to do what he has done.

“To think that the president of the United States studied constitutional law is one thing …. he taught it as well.  But now his actions suggest he’s forgotten what these words even mean. 

“Enough is enough.  By their votes last November, the people made clear they want more accountability from this president.  And by our votes here today, we will heed their will, and we will keep our oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.”

22 TIMES PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID HE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE UNILATERAL ACTION ON IMMIGRATION
Visit Speaker.gov for the full quotes.

March 31, 2008: “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to … not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President…”

May 19, 2008: “I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States.”

May 5, 2010: “Anybody who tells you … that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn’t been paying attention to how this town works.”

July 1, 2010: “[T]here are those … who have argued passionately that we should … at least ignore the laws on the books… I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair.”

October 14, 2010: “I do have an obligation to make sure that I am following some of the rules. I can’t simply ignore laws that are out there.”

October 25, 2010: “I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. … I can’t just make the laws up by myself.”

March 28, 2011: “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law.”

April 20, 2011: “I can’t solve this problem by myself. …  I can’t do it by myself.”

April 29, 2011: “Some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself.  But that’s not how democracy works”

May 10, 2011: “They wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works.”

July 25, 2011: “The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. … But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

September 28, 2011: “We live in a democracy.  You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.”

September 20, 2012: “What I’ve always said is, as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do.”

October 16, 2012: “We’re … a nation of laws. … And I’ve done everything that I can on my own.”

January 30, 2013: “I’m not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I’m required to follow the law.”

January 30, 2013: “I’m not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law.”

February 14, 2013: “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States.”

July 16, 2013: “I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative.”

September 17, 2013: “My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. … But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law…”

November 25, 2013: “The easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. … That’s not our tradition.”

March 6, 2014: “And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore … any of the other laws that are on the books.”

August 6, 2014: “I’m bound by the Constitution; I’m bound by separation of powers.”

– See more at: http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/affront-rule-law-and-constitution-itself#sthash.kj2755W5.dpuf

Mike Huckabee ends talk show, weighs presidential run

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee speaks. | AP Photo
AP Photo

Mike Huckabee ends talk show, weighs presidential run

1/3/15 7:42 PM EST

Updated 1/3/15 8:39 PM EST

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee announced Saturday night that he would be ending his Fox News talk show to gauge support for a possible presidential campaign.

“There has been a great deal of speculation as to whether I would run for President,” Huckabee told his followers on Facebook. “I won’t make a decision about running until late in the spring of 2015, but the continued chatter has put Fox News into a position that is not fair to them.”

Story Continued Below

“I feel compelled to ascertain if the support exists strongly enough for another Presidential run. So as we say in television, stay tuned!” he added.

Huckabee, who ran for the Republican nomination in 2008 and hosted his show for more than six and a half years, had drawn renewed attention by criticizing former secretary of state Hillary Clinton last month after she said “smart power” also means empathizing and showing respect for enemies.

“How can we empathize with terrorists who think nothing of beheading innocent men, women and children?” Huckabee asked in a blog post on his website last month.

The 2016 race is already well underway online.

Even before Huckabee had made his announcement, Rand Paul’s PAC was firing away on the digital front. Just as the Kentucky Republican’s political arm had done when Jeb Bush signaled last month he was weighing a White House campaign, Paul’s team bought prime real estate for any Google searches using the terms “Huckabee record”, “Huckabee announcement”, “Huckabee taxes” and “Huckabee common core.”

“Less Taxes Not More,” read one ad for RandPAC. “We need leaders who will cut taxes not raise them. Join us.”

RandPAC also targeted users tweeting about Huckabee or his announcement with ads.

Huckabee’s leadership PAC, Huck PAC, took in $2.2 million in the 2014 cycle, spending approximately $2 million, with about $500,000 on hand. Huckabee’s daughter, Sarah Huckabee, also runs a super PAC called American Principles Fund. In the 2014 cycle, it raised $1.4 million, spent $1.3 million and had $60,000 on hand.

Huckabee came in a distant second to John McCain in the 2008 Republican primaries. The former pastor turned Arkansas governor started strong, winning the Iowa GOP caucus by 9 percentage points over Mitt Romney.

Three-in-five Iowa caucusgoers in 2008 were evangelical or born-again Christians, but, a week later in New Hampshire, fewer than 25 percent of GOP primary voters were evangelicals. Huckabee finished third in the Granite State, with only 11 percent of the vote.

He then captured his home state of Arkansas, along with Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Tennessee and West Virginia. Despite these victories, McCain secured the necessary number of delegates by early March with a clean sweep of contests in Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont.

Even though Huckabee faded quickly in 2008, his win in the Iowa caucuses left a big mark on the electorate that votes in that contest, which is a more conservative and more evangelical group than even other segments of the GOP primary electorate elsewhere.

But his slow strip toward ultimately saying he wouldn’t run in 2012 has left many skeptical of his intentions for 2016. The former Arkansas governor appears to have profited financially from being in the national spotlight — raking in money from paid speeches, for instance, and making expansive use of chartered planes — and many believe he’s unlikely to leave aside a life of relative comfort for a long-shot campaign.

Sources say Huckabee still has paid speeches scheduled in the coming weeks. Huckabee also has a book coming out later this month, titled “God, Guns, Grits and Gravy,” and speculation about a presidential run could add to the hype as he promotes the book.

Any number of politicians have been paid contributors to Fox News, but the cable channel’s policy requires it to sever those ties if that person takes certain steps toward running for office. At times, it has ended the agreements even before the would-be candidate makes a final decision on whether to run.

Huckabee wrote on his Facebook page earlier that the announcement Saturday night would “make news for sure.”

It’s not the first time he has made an important decision public on his show, which debuted in September 2008. In May 2011, Huckabee teased a similar announcement ahead of the 2012 presidential election.

“All the factors say go, but my heart says no,” he told viewers.

 

Did you know that Obama gave illegal immigrants a civil right that you do not have?

President Obama Signs Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act

Did you know that Obama granted illegal immigrants a civil right that you do not have? 

I continually deal with the miracle of changed lives.  When gang members and drug addicts come to Christ, God forgives them, the church forgives them but the government does not.  They still have to pay for their past whenever they apply for a job, seek a student loan.

This is because of a question that is on every application.  As an adult, you must disclose that you have a criminal record.  That record follows you through life.

This affects me on a very deep level.  I know an outstanding young man, who has all of the gifts, discipline, and love for God that will make him a great leader.  He is a model father and husband.

To make matters even more dramatic, he is Latino, born in the United States to parents who went through proper channels.

But like so many who lived in poverty ravaged neighborhoods, he ended up in trouble with the law and now,  many years after he radically repented, he is cheerfully paying off a debt.   His crime record stands.

It is sad but true that criminal records need to stand in order to protect society.  For every good citizen who has truly repented there are dozens who will commit crimes again.

However, when Obama granted amnesty to 11 million illegal immigrants he gave them the right not to have to report their crime, a Federal Felony, that they committed by entering the United States illegally.   This felony will not appear on any application for work or education.  They will not have a criminal record for a crime they committed.

At some point, because a natural born American has to keep his crime record, they may be turned down for a job or a loan where an illegal immigrant may not be turned down.  Simply stated, they now have an extra civil right.

We already see this preferential treatment in Obamacare where companies will get a $3,000 rebate for hiring illegals instead of American citizens.

While we are at it, it is insulting to your intelligence when amnesty advocates say “they came here to be good citizens and to escape extreme violence and poverty” .  They committed a crime to get in here and now they are magically never going to commit another crime?

If you, God forbid were unable to leave a violent neighborhood, could you be a squatter in a nicer neighborhood?  Could starving homeless Americans loot a supermarket for food and get away with it?

Oops, the answer to the second is yes, if you are part of a demonstration against racism.

How can we possibly believe that this is some grand benevolent gesture to give people jobs and a future when, Obama has already proven he is a spectacular failure at obtaining those things for Americans?

The unambiguous purpose of amnesty is to allow the Democratic Party to hold on to power.  That is why so many refer to illegals as undocumented democrats.

A new civil right, one you do not have, has been granted to those who came here in violation of our law.  You should be boiling mad, infuriated and fit to be tied…at both parties.

Americans do not trust Obama: The World is on Fire

WASHINGTON, DC – At a press briefing with Republican leaders today, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) took President Obama to task for his recent unilateral action on immigration, saying the president’s overreach has made “it harder for the American people and their elected representatives to trust his word on any issue.”  Following are Boehner’s remarks:

“The American people want both parties to focus on solutions to our still-struggling economy.  This week we’ll pass important legislation to help families with special needs and to prevent tax hikes on millions of families and small businesses.

“The president, on the other hand, has ignored the will of the American people and he’s refused to listen. … His decision to take unilateral action on immigration – action he himself said exceeded his authority – makes it harder for the American people and their elected representatives to trust his word on any issue.

“I said before Thanksgiving that Republicans would fight his unilateral actions.  We’re looking at a variety of options, both for right now and when Republicans control both Houses of the Congress next year.  And we’ll continue to discuss with our members a number of options, in terms of how we will deal with this, in consultation, again, with the members – but no decisions have been made at this point.”

– See more at: http://www.speaker.gov/video/boehner-president-s-unilateral-action-immigration-undermines-americans-trust#sthash.GC9E0IYe.dpuf

TED CRUZ: ‘The World Is On Fire’

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) attacked what he described as “the Obama-Clinton foreign policy” in a wide-ranging speech on Tuesday.

“It’s almost as if the whole world is on fire right now,” Cruz said at a Washington event hosted by Concerned Veterans for America. “Leading from behind doesn’t work.”

As an alternative, Cruz presented his own three-part plan for “reasserting American leadership in the world.” The first step, Cruz said, was making sure the US government again becomes a voice for freedom.

“We should be a clarion voice for freedom. Never underestimate the power of the bully pulpit of America,” Cruz said, citing former President Ronald Reagan’s speech urging the Soviet Union to tear down the Berlin Wall. “One of the most striking and inexplicable aspects of the last six years is the almost complete absence of American leadership speaking out for freedom.”

The second step of the Cruz foreign policy plan is presenting a clear vision for the deployment of US military force. Cruz accused Obama and Hillary Clinton — the president’s former secretary of state and likely Democratic front-runner in 2016 — of being focused on press releases, photo-ops, and “international norms” rather than national security.

“The second critical element is resolutely defending US national security. The singular failure of the Obama-Clinton foreign policy has been a failure to focus on the vital national security interests of the United States,” Cruz said. “If and when we have to [use force], it should be with a clear, stated objective up front. We should go in with overwhelming force and then we should get the heck out. It is not the job of our military to produce democratic utopias across the world.”

 Throughout the speech, Cruz took Obama to task for having a lackluster approach to a whole host of issues including; nuclear negotiations with Iran, the showdown with Russia over Ukraine, the military operations against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS), and backing democratic activists in despotic regimes.

For this third point, Cruz also critiqued Obama’s handling of his own administration. Cruz noted Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel just announced his resignation — the third such departure of Obama’s last six years in office.

“What a failure of leadership at a time when the world is on fire,” said Cruz. “It seems what the administration is looking for is a defense secretary who will follow the orders of a political White House.”

The administration’s failures, Cruz said, were starting to become comical.

“You literally cannot make this stuff up. If ‘Saturday Night Live’ were parodying a hapless, ineffective president, they couldn’t make up things up worse. Look, just a few months ago, Jimmy Carter criticized this president for being weak on foreign policy! Holy cow!” he exclaimed to laughs.

 

Senator predicts a firestorm that could lead to violence

firestorm copy

WASHINGTON — Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn warns there could be not only a political firestorm but acts of civil disobedience and even violence in reaction to President Obama’s executive order on immigration Thursday.

“The country’s going to go nuts, because they’re going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president, and it’s going to be a very serious situation,” Coburn said on Capital Download. “You’re going to see — hopefully not — but you could see instances of anarchy. … You could see violence.”

Coburn, 66, is a conservative Republican but one who has a personal relationship with Obama. They entered the Senate in the same class, elected in 2004, and the new senators from opposite ends of the political spectrum and their spouses immediately hit it off at an orientation dinner. Last year, the president wrote a tribute in Time magazine to Coburn as “someone who speaks his mind (and) sticks to his principles.”

“I really like the guy,” Coburn, 66, told USA TODAY’s weekly video newsmaker series Wednesday. “I thought he’s neat, and I think Michelle’s a neat lady.”

“Instead of having the rule of law handling in our country today, now we’re starting to have the rule of rulers, and that’s the total antithesis of what this country was founded on,” Coburn says. “Here’s how people think: Well, if the law doesn’t apply to the president … then why should it apply to me?”

Though he says both parties deserve some of the blame for Washington’s dysfunction, he argues that the president has the ability to chart a different path. Solid Republican control of Congress in the wake of this month’s midterm elections could make it easier to deal with an issue such as the structural problems associated with the deficit. Making the compromises necessary for that “requires divided government,” he says.

“If I were in his office, I’d say, if you want to have a successful second term, dig down, swallow your pride, get what you can get, compromise on everything you can for the best interests of the country,” he says. “Bring us back together.”

The dictatorship continues in America

dictatorship copy

One of the architect of Obamacare said that it passed because of the stupidity of voters. Howard Kurtz, host of the Fox News Channel’s “Mediabuzz” slammed the media for failing to report the controversial comments of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber, arguing that the “inexcusable,” “virtual blackout” was an example of liberal media bias on Wednesday’s “O’Reilly Factor” on the Fox News Channel.

“It’s been a virtual blackout, Bill, and it’s inexcusable, nothing on the network evening newscasts.  One mention on CNN, not a word in the New York Times. On what planet is this kind of embarrassing admission not news?  Maybe on that comet where the spaceship just landed” he stated.

After O’Reilly argued “you don’t really get the news if it goes against the liberal orthodoxy, and this is proof,” Kurtz responded, “I cannot argue on this. I think it’s gotten more pronounced during the Obama administration and by the way you mentioned MSNBC. Jonathan Gruber goes on the afternoon show there and talks to Ronan Farrow who has got zero journalistic experience…my 9-year-old daughter could have conducted a better interview with Jonathan Gruber.”

Related:

pelosi

Nancy Pelosi claimed Thursday she didn’t know who ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber is, after several tapes surfaced showing him gloating about how the law was written to take advantage of the stupidity of the American voter.

Problem is, Gruber’s analysis of the law was cited extensively by her office back in 2009.

Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, tried to downplay Gruber’s role during a press conference on Thursday.

She claimed she doesn’t know who he is, and that he didn’t help write the law. “Let’s put him aside,” she said.

However, Gruber was involved in the process – as his newly surfaced remarks make clear – and his analysis indeed was cited by Pelosi’s office when she was House speaker in late 2009.

At the time, her office put out a “health insurance reform mythbuster” press release pointing to the work of “noted MIT health care economist Jonathan Gruber” in examining the House bill’s impact on premiums. They noted that Gruber found it “would result in lower premiums than under current law for the millions of Americans using the newly-established Health Insurance Exchange.”

Pelosi also mentioned Gruber during a press conference at the time.

Still, when the press release was brought to Pelosi’s office’s attention on Thursday, aides indicated she does not know him – as she does not know everyone they have cited on their website.

And her spokesman claimed Gruber was not technically a bill author. “We’ve cited the work of dozens upon dozens of economists over the years. As the Leader said today, Mr. Gruber played no role in drafting our bill,” Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said.

Democrats have been putting some distance between themselves and Gruber after a series of recordings – mostly from 2012 and 2013 – have surfaced showing him bad-mouthing American voters.

The latest shows him speaking at the University of Rhode Island in 2012 about the law’s so-called “Cadillac tax.” The “Cadillac tax” mandates that insurance companies be taxed rather than policy holders. He said that taxing individuals would have been “politically impossible,” but taxing the companies worked because Americans didn’t understand the difference.

“So basically it’s the same thing,” he said. “We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”

The new video follows another showing him speaking on a similar topic at an October 2013 event at Washington University in St. Louis. Referring to the “Cadillac tax,” he said: “They proposed it and that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference.” He also has said a lack of transparency helped the law pass. 

Watch video of Jonathan Gruber

Republicans had better have a plan and act on that plan or they will end up worse than the Democrats.

 repub leaders copy

Republicans had better have a plan and act on that plan or they will end up worse than the Democrats.

By Mario Murillo

Dear Republican leadership,

The inevitable disaster of last Tuesday was long overdue for the White House of Cards.  Obama was kept on life support by his race, a cadre of Network news anchors, Ivy League socialists, corrupt unions, and idealistic youth.  Most, with the exception of a pathetic patch of lefties, have abandoned Barrack Obama.

But let’s be clear about one thing: The tidal wave of rejection of Obama is not a ringing endorsement of the Republican Party. Many who voted against Obama’s cohorts did so because they are only slightly less angry with Republicans.

Having won control of Congress, the GOP must now put forward a clear program to create jobs and govern reasonably, lest it give Democrats the upper hand for the 2016 presidential election…and do many other very bad things to you.

rand-paul

Here are the clear and present dangers for Republicans:

A. Your firewall is gone. You had the great luxury of Obama’s mind numbing failure. Now you have the car keys and they are looking to you for action. You had a pass and could focus on attacking Obama’s agenda without having one of your own.   It’s time for ideas not campaign rhetoric.

Of course Obama will veto everything but that does not matter.  You had better be busy sending an unending steam of bills that are designed to create jobs and make us safe.

B. Your words will come back to haunt you. For years you have said to the democrats, “why didn’t you get something done when you controlled the House and the Senate?” Every word will boomerang on you if you repeat the inaction of the Democratic Party.  If you dawdle and wrangle you will see a litany of campaign ads that will quote everything you said against Washington incompetence and gridlock.

C.The American public will not wait to vote you out. Their anger has been awakened and it will take them less time to turn on you than it did to turn on Democrats. We have given you the opportunity to govern and you must get to it!  If not, you will lose seats as fast as you gained them and you will lose the presidential election of 2016.

Here is what you must do immediately:

1. Send Obama a bill to completely repeal Obamacare. Yeah, I’ve heard all of the excuses: We cannot repeal the Affordable Care Act, because it lacks enough votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto; it is impossible to roll back the clock, because the old insurance plans are gone, and many individuals now depend on the ACA’s previsions, no matter how costly those may be….blah, blah, blah.

 But wait, America hates Obamacare.  Surely the nation that landed on the moon can do better than Obamacare…at least that what millions of Americans think and they are looking to you to do it.

I repeat…for the sake of your survival, send a bill to the President to repeal Obamacare and come up with a plan to save the best medical care in the world.   If that doesn’t work then  keep sending him smaller bills that target the most onerous parts of the Affordable Care Act:  junk the employer mandate, make insurance plans compete with each other to lower premiums, and benchmark the prices charged for medical devices. Just do it!

republican-senator-joni-ernst

2.Get the Keystone Pipeline up and running! When Democrats oppose energy independence they look like sandaled hippies banging their foreheads against wind chimes as they saunter out of a head shop.

Obama has no cover for his job killing environmental terrorism.  We have the technology to protect the earth and America’s future.   Get the pipeline bill passed!   The votes are there to overcome a veto because many Democratic Congressmen will be in jeopardy at home if they vote no on the pipeline.

3.Secure the border.  Support for Obama among Latinos has dropped by nearly 20 points.  You would be shocked how many Latinos want a secure border.  Given their culture, conservatism is the natural home for Latinos.  Now is the time for common sense.  Before we talk about legalizing anyone we must stop the flow of criminals, disease and terrorists into the United States.

4. Finish the investigations on Benghazi and the IRS.  These remain high crimes against the American people and the victims deserve justice.  Get to the bottom of it and punish the guilty.

Benghazi Massacre Blog copy

We can all think of a hundred more things that Republicans should do but these 4 are burning within me.  There you have it…a solemn warning.  You begged and fought for a chance to serve America.  Here’s your chance.  Take it, run with it, or there will be the infernal regions to pay for it.

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.