City on a Hill Political Observer

Mark Levin Destroys Chris Christie's Romney Shilling

2012-01-28T11:18:00.002-05:00

Let me be clear: I live in New Jersey and I can appreciate some of the work that Governor Christie has done here. He's clearly the most conservative governor in the Garden State in my 35 years. I gladly voted for him (and blogged in support of him) over our befuddled menacing liberal overlord of a governor, the newly jail-bound Jon S. Corzine.

That, however, does not a conservative make. National conservatives are so enamored with Christie's blunt talk that they project conservatism onto him. He's not a conservative no matter how many times Ann Coulter claims that he is. His efforts at reigning in spending have been decent but don't nearly match his level of rhetoric. He's almost singly focused on the teaching profession as the sole bastion of mis-spent government largesse and left vast portions of the state behemoth untouched. He has more folks making 6 figure salaries in his office than Corzine did. He's nominated radical leftists to key court positions and enabled a radical Jihadist to remain in the states when Homeland Security attempted to deport him.

And only now after beginning his 3rd year in office has he gotten around to any kind of tax cut proposal to help spur the economy on. So, Mr. Levin's analysis is correct. Not only is Christie using Alinsky-like attack tactics in distorting the historical record regarding Newt Gingrich, but he also does not have the conservative credibility that many ascribe to him--which is why he's supporting Mitt Romney.

Newt Gingrich is not perfect. He doesn't, however, deserve the nasty and very personal attacks directed by the GOP establishment that are based in half-truths or outright lies.

We Salute Governor Brewer

2012-01-28T11:01:00.002-05:00

Gov Brewer stands her ground with Obama

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer stood her ground when thin-skinned narcissist President Barack Obama immediately launched into an attack on her upon being greeted by the governor upon his landing in Arizona. Mr. Obama apparently put official business aside (a major skill of his--golf, lengthy lavish vacations and fundraisers have been pushing jobs, national security and even submitting a budget to the back burner repeatedly) to confront the governor about some mean words she wrote about him in her book.

Seriously.

The man who runs the country is so thin-skinned that he can't put aside his hurt feelings that a political opponent of his, who runs a state that his justice department is suing, would dare write anything but glowing praise of him.

So surrounded by a media that worships his every failing is Mr. Obama, that a simple criticism renders him unable to do his job. For crying out loud, the media is so willing to make him look good that they are pulling an ostrich by not reporting the kidnapping of the son of Obama Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. Media outlets are pushing coverage of this story to the back burner while labeling his kidnapping as being "barred from leaving Egypt" which in layman's terms is kidnapped, imprisoned, or held against your will.

And just who has kidnapped him? The Muslim Brotherhood. The radical Jihadist group that has taken control of Egypt's government to the guffawing of the Obama administration on the wonders of Arab Spring. In Obama's world, it's better that a old and feeble dictator who was somewhat favorable to the United States would be replaced with young virile radical Jihadists hell-bent on killing infidels a la the Taliban. So desirous is Mr. Obama and his complicit media to prop up this radical organization and his failed foreign policy approach that they are unwilling to report this story for what it is. And even while this crisis plays out, Mr. Obama is in essence "negotiating with terrorists" as he pushes Washington to offer more in aid and support to the radical Muslim Brotherhood.

By contrast, Governor Jan Brewer stands firm in upholding her duties to her state and her country. And in spite of the fact that the president is suing her for doing her job, she still offered a polite invitation to Mr. Obama to sit and discuss the policies that have been helping to turn around Arizona's economy.

And yet, a quick glance over the media reporting of the event would lead one to believe that Governor Brewer was in the wrong instead of a president who throws a temper tantrum while on an official visit to a head of state. Contrast that with the vicious smears and attacks directed at Sarah Palin during the campaign of 2008. It's apparently okay to besmirch a woman but not to stand up to an unprovoked verbal attack by a petulant child, so long as he is the socialist leader of the free world and advancing the progressive agenda.

We salute Governor Brewer for eating scorpions for breakfast and returning fire on the incompetent and thin skinned narcissist playing the role of president.

Cheat Sheet for Obama SOTU Dramatic Reading

2012-01-24T18:31:00.003-05:00

The man behind the glass speaks to mere mortals...

Tonight the president will dramatically and haltingly read scrolling text from glass panes to us in his annual state of the union reading.

What exciting things will the paned glass tell Mr. Obama to share with us? Here's a cheat sheet of things you are sure to hear tonight. Disclaimer: some of these are re-treads from a previous post. Mr. Obama's idiosyncratic speech-giving is nothing if not consistent. Expect Mr. Obama's tennis match between the glass panes to include the following pearls of wisdom tossed to the "lazy" and "soft" serfs of this downright mean country:

1. “Let me be clear.” This one is a classic Obama move in which he informs us of his forthcoming rhetorical clarity before launching into a cliche-filled romp that says nothing and everything at the same time.

2. “Few would have foreseen...” The President loves this line, and uses it often to remind us what a monumental historical figure he is. As in his speech to Germany for the anniversary of the Berlin Wall’s collapse. That momentous moment was but a side note to the fact that “few would have foreseen a black man would be president.” Nothing is larger than his ego.

3. “Unprecedented...” Everything this man does is unprecedented and he likes to tell us that repeatedly. One imagines George Washington reminding his constituents on a daily basis how “unprecedented” his presidency was and how “few would have foreseen” his personal glory. Obama’s humility is so awe-inspiring.

4. Expect the "George W Bushing" of the entire GOP. Everything will be their fault. Nevermind that the Democratic party still runs the senate or that he has failed to submit a budget or actually tackle anything of substance. Ignore the fact that he's been the most rabid proponent of socialism this side of Chairman Mao. It is all the fault of the mean and greedy rich GOP house. He'll start laying the groundwork for his billion dollar "scorched earth" campaign strategy. With a disastrous record only Jimmy Carter could envy, expect Barry to lay it on thick about how evil and corrupt the GOP is. Also, expect a lot of talk about his intentions and feelings. That's liberal-speak for "I've failed miserably and have no actual accomplishments, but man, I mean well."

5. "Fairness" Expect the great socialist enthusiast to proclaim the virtues of fairness over and over again. Fairness and equality. Translation: Spreading the poverty around. Mr. Obama is not a fan of capitalism or success. Expect demonization of anyone above the poverty line with a demand to participate in "shared sacrifice." This of course from the man who has played some 90 rounds of golf and enjoyed endless vacations to the tune of millions of taxpayer dollars. Oh, and also that over-the-top Mad Hatter tea party. And the Kobe beef imports.

6. “Uh Uh Uh Ah Ah Ah Uh.” What’s an Obama speech without a massive dose of brilliant stuttering.

7. "Americans are soft and lazy." Okay, he won't say it that bluntly, but look for the self-aggrandizing community organizer-in-chief to passively-aggressively blame us for his failures and lack of job creation. He'll attempt to portray the anemic job growth numbers as progress. He'll attempt to tell us that the reason he hasn't been able to do more is because of our own sloth and greed instead of his own bizarre hybrid job-creating approach of radical failed socialist ideology and total incompetence.

8. Expect nothing regarding terrorism unless it is directed at the tea party. He'll grandstand about bringing the troops home from Iraq and pretend that his foreign policy is working because he's so popular personally among the radicals enjoying their own Jihadist Mardi Gras in the Middle East's "Arab Spring" that so tickles his fancy. He'll attempt to portray sickly elderly dictators being replaced by virile crazed blood-thirsty Jihadists currently making strategic alliances with China, Cuba and Venezuela as a win.

9. "America is exceptional like Greece is exceptional." Expect him to downplay America's role in the world and diminish our hopes and dreams. He'll tell us to settle for less and accept that we are just ordinary. As he seeks to make us more like the failed bankrupt nations of Europe, he'll try to make us feel like it's the best we can hope for.

10. But the most important topic and key words in the speech, however will by far be those about himself. The old narcissistic “Me, myself and I” routine. He loves himself and he doesn't care who knows it. Expect a lot of "I" instead of team. He's a one-man show and he doesn't like to share the spotlight.

So there it is, the topics you can expect our glorious leader to cover. You are now prepared to watch the best public reader, er, speaker in the world read you to sleep while gushing over himself and blaming his problems on the nefarious George Bush. Prepare to be inspired and/or passive-aggressively insulted.

Solid Conservative Fred Thompson Endorses Newt Gingrich

2012-01-24T16:57:00.001-05:00

Former Senator Fred Thompson, who was my preferred 2008 candidate for president, has released the following statement endorsing Newt Gingrich for president.

When Fred speaks, I listen. He's a thoughtful and solid conservative. I believe that Senator Thompson has looked at the stakes involved in this election and concluded that a moderate establishment candidate like Romney can't win. Newt is not a perfect man or candidate. He's surging and earning support in this election because he's communicating a passionate unapologetic conservative message. If the GOP seeks to defeat Barack Obama this year, they need to heed Ronald Reagan's late 1970s caution to embrace "bold colors" of contrast instead of the "pale pastels" of running a moderate against a far-left candidate.

Unapologetic conservatives win every time. Moderates lose. A quick glance at recent presidential politics should make that clear.

Here's Fred Thompson's endorsement:

Newt's Moment (Again): Vote Gingrich in South Carolina Primary

2012-01-18T16:33:00.000-05:00

While I am still not at the point where I can make an official endorsement and go all-in for a candidate, I am urging folks to vote for Newt Gingrich in the South Carolina primary. Newt and Rick Santorum remain the only viable alternatives in the race, and at this point Mr. Gingrich is in the stronger position. It is absolutely essential that Mitt Romney be denied the presidential nomination if the GOP is to win in the general election this year. The best way to slow or stop Mitt's coronation by the establishment is by voting for Newt Gingrich and denying the Massachusetts moderate a victory. A victory by Romney would make it much more difficult for any of the remaining non-establishment darlings to win the nomination.

While Rick Santorum saw some initial momentum after Iowa, he hasn't been able to sustain that level of support and appears out of reach in terms of winning South Carolina. Newt appears to be the best candidate to carry forth a bold conservative message against Mr. Romney's flaccid brand of diluted conservatism endorsed by the RINOcracy. It is still possible that the race will shift again and that Rick Santorum will rise again, but for the moment, Newt Gingrich is the best candidate running in the GOP primary.

Demonstrating that he has more political lives than a cat, Mr. Gingrich has risen from the ashes again. After disappointing finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, his campaign is surging in South Carolina thanks in part to a phenomenal night at the debate on Monday. Mr. Gingrich has always dominated the debates but his responses in Monday's event demonstrated a fearless conservatism that would make Obama cower in fear. His campaign began capitalizing (rightly so) on one of his best moments with this new ad:

Additionally, former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, told Sean Hannity on Monday night that she would vote for Newt if she lived in South Carolina:

While not an endorsement, it will carry a lot of weight among the tea party folks. With Newt surging to within a few points of Mittens, it is possible that he may score a major victory in South Carolina to slow down Prince Mitt's coronation.

Tea party independent conservatives are hungry for a fighter. And when he's at his best, Mr. Gingrich delivers the most spirited and powerful straight-forward presentation of conservatism since Reagan and Palin. And a Gingrich-Palin ticket is something a lot of folks could get behind. Just saying.

Steven Colbert PAC: Mitt's a Serial Killer

2012-01-15T17:00:00.000-05:00

I love this ad!

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Iowans Urged to "Vote Rogue" and Caucus for Sarah Palin

2011-12-29T09:45:00.002-05:00

Sarah Palin speaking in Iowa on Sept 3

This has been an unpredictable political season. The ups and downs have been, to use a favorite phrase of President Obama's "unprecedented." With things very much still up in the air in the presidential campaign, it has been difficult to make any kind of endorsements. Candidates surge and look promising and then little-known facts about their record begin to see the light of day and suddenly they don't look too promising anymore. With Iowa just days away, I feel confident enough to make an endorsement for the Iowa Caucus ONLY. Too many comings and goings will occur in the weeks following Iowa. It is the formal endorsement of the City on a Hill Political Observer that folks in Iowa who desire true reform in this election write-in and caucus for former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin on January 3.

This has been a difficult decision, but I firmly believe that this is the right move to advance conservatism and defeat Mitt Romney and Barack Obama in 2012. This vote is not just about a particular candidate or messenger if you will, but about an unadulterated message of sudden and relentless reform to root out crony capitalism and corruption and restore America to Constitutionally limited government and a peace through strength Reagan foreign policy.

This is a rather "unconventional" endorsement for a caucus but it is the right move at this unconventional time. It comes after taking a long hard look at the current crop of candidates:

MITT ROMNEY is currently leading polls in Iowa. This man has no core convictions about anything and a Romney candidacy will be McCain 2.0. He will destroy himself in the general election campaign as Mr. Obama will only have to play videos of his multiple positions on every major issue on an endless loop. Mr. Romney is also a member of the establishment in a time when an outsider is needed. His alleged backroom deals with folks for endorsements and help clearing the path to the nomination are troubling. His mean-spirited attacks on people like Newt Gingrich for crying about his dead mother and his temper tantrum because Bret Baier asked him questions that he didn't like don't bode well for a general election candidacy. Mitt Romney cannot be allowed to become the GOP nominee. If he does a third party candidate will emerge to appeal to the tea party and independent folks dissatisfied with his candidacy.

RON PAUL is not a serious candidate. His foreign policy is sheer folly. He blames America for virtually every ill in the world (when he can't find a way to blame Israel) and he looks upon maniacal dictators and terrorist regimes as if they were cute and cuddly little puppies. He would actually run to the LEFT of Barack Obama on foreign policy. Domestically, he's great, but then there is that whole Commander-In-Chief thing to consider.

RICK PERRY may have a good record as Texas Governor, but he's unable to coherently string together two sentences regarding policy. He's a good guy and his campaign makes fantastic commercials. He can't hide behind those commercials for the duration of the campaign, however, and he doesn't do well in debates or interviews. As a result, he's not going to win a campaign against the billion dollar Obama machine with a hostile media. He simply cannot win.

MICHELE BACHMANN also can't win. Her campaign has been a disaster. She shamelessly attacks her opponents while simultaneously doing the very thing she attacks them for (amnesty, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.) She makes up tall tales about her biography. The problem with Bachmann is that she lacks any significant record of accomplishment. She may have fought the good fight for the last 6 years but she lost every single battle. This campaign has done nothing but diminish her credibility and integrity and will likely result in her departure from congress as well. There is no way that Bachmann can mount a serious candidacy at this point. Rumors that Bachmann entered the race to clear the field for Romney have existed all year. Recent revelations where a supposed Bachmann Super PAC which spent a whopping total of $0 on her behalf was conveniently endorsing Romney and running ads on his behalf mere days before the Iowa caucus raise suspicions. Add that to the other recent revelations that she intentionally "withheld attacks" on Mitt Romney in hopes of scoring a VP slot only makes her look worse.

JON HUNTSMAN. Um, no. He served as Obama's ambassador to China. He's not a serious contender for the GOP nomination. He allegedly was a pretty conservative governor, but his past association with Obama and his intentionally positioning himself as the left-leaning candidate in the race doesn't inspire confidence. His uncanny resemblance to Don Knotts also makes it difficult to take him seriously.

After eliminating ROMNEY, PAUL, PERRY, BACHMANN and HUNTSMAN from consideration, that leaves us with the final 2 candidates: RICK SANTORUM and NEWT GINGRICH.

I certainly understand folks in Iowa who caucus for either of these candidates. They are both potentially strong candidates against Obama, but like the rest of the field they also have glaring flaws as well that may make beating Obama a nearly impossible task.

NEWT GINGRICH is the most knowledgeable and experienced man in the race. His platform is solidly conservative and refreshingly detailed. He's a bold reformer who knows how Washington works and has a strong grasp of history. His record is not solidly conservative on everything, however. Many of the attacks launched on his record are unfair and lack the context of history. For example, folks attacking him on voting for "amnesty" in the mid-1980s should know that this was part of a deal supported by President Reagan in dealing with a Democratic congress. The Democrats promised the moon and then failed to deliver after the GOP went along with the plan. Was it a mistake? Yes. But it part of the Reagan administration's attempt at compromise. Newt is much more conservative than his critics give him credit for, but there are some serious questions (like praising Romneycare as late as 2008.) Newt also has personal baggage. He's come clean and apologized for his past, but there will always be that question in the minds of voters. His polling has recently taken a major hit. He seems to be going the way of all the previous top tier folks (Perry, Bachmann, Cain) by sliding into irrelevance again. He hasn't really been able to rebuild his standing after the attacks started and still hasn't found his footing on how to appropriately respond to those attacks. He already came back from the political graveyard once this cycle. It's not impossible to think he could do it again, but his low polling suggests that Iowa is out of reach for him now. He may yet emerge as the credible alternative to Mitt Romney but Iowa is probably not where he will do it.

RICK SANTORUM seems to be the most consistent in his record. That is until he finally started surging in Iowa. The increased scrutiny is starting to bring things in his record to light and he's not as consistent as we once thought. Santorum is largely known as a social conservative. Apparently, he used to love earmarks. He also did little to slow the growth of government and his record is more in line with the big-government conservatism of George W. Bush. That doesn't make him a bad guy, but another big-government conservative is not what we need right now. We need someone willing to make the tough choices and cut the size of government. Santorum has finally surged into third place in Iowa, but ONLY in Iowa. He hasn't surged in NH or SC or nationally. It's unlikely that even with a top tier finish in Iowa Santorum could turn his number around drastically enough to win the nomination. He's a good guy, but he's also been campaigning for almost a year and has seen no movement at all in his polling numbers except for Iowa. I have serious questions as to whether Santorum could emerge as a credible candidate. He just doesn't seem to resonate with voters.

So, after evaluating the field, although I am sympathetic to Gingrich and Santorum voters and may ultimately end up endorsing one of these two for the nomination later in the primary season, I believe that voting "rogue" in Iowa is our best choice at the present time. I can't full-heartedly commit to either of these last standing candidates because of the up and down dynamic of this race. I am not confident that Gingrich can claw back up a second time and I don't know whether Santorum can handle the scrutiny that comes with top tier status or whether he can resonate outside of Iowa. And this nomination is too important to just hand over to the establishment once again. We must not let the establishment choose our nominee. We need to have a nominee that is willing to fight that establishment and not seek to curry favor with it. As a result, we need to vote rogue.

Palin's recent comments on the subject of reconsidering have left the door open. I don't believe she's actively planning to jump in, but a strong showing for the non-candidate Palin would do far more to steal the thunder from Romney's permanent political class and send shock-waves through the election cycle. Palin has commented in the past that good leaders are drafted and questioned whether the people of America really want a true unconventional and independent champion of sudden and relentless reform. A strong showing for Palin would allow her the cover and justification to enter the race if she chooses to or at least to take that new political capital to invest in another imperfect candidate like Gingrich or Santorum to hold their feet to the fire and push them toward reform. Either way, the Sarah Palin caucus would elevate the power of the tea party once more and demonstrate to the permanent political class of both parties that real independent conservative Americans desire true sudden and relentless reform and that we're not going to accept half-hearted or insincere attempts at winning our votes. Caucusing for Sarah Palin would not be wasting votes as some would suggest. It would be the strongest possible political statement that common sense Constitutional conservatives in Iowa could make. America is at a crucial tipping point. It's time for Americans to stand up and be counted.

For that reason, City on a Hill urges folks in Iowa to caucus for Sarah Palin.

New Palin Ad in Iowa: An Earthquake in the making?

2011-12-26T22:22:00.000-05:00

Yet another Sarah Palin ad aimed at getting her to reconsider her decision to sit out Iowa and trying to convince caucus goers to write-in non-candidate Sarah Palin on January 3 has been created and will be airing on Iowa television:

Will it work?

Palin supporters have been all over the map after October 5. United by our chosen messenger and a powerful message of sudden and relentless common sense Constitutional reform, we became a force to be reckoned with in politics. Folks from across the country began working together and engaging in a political process that we had largely been spectators of for some time. Since McCain's defeat to Obama in 2008, many of us have been working, volunteering and contributing to getting Sarah Palin elected in 2012. When Mrs. Palin informed the nation on October 5 that she would not be seeking the presidential nomination and then followed up by telling Mark Levin that she'd also ruled out a third party run, her supporters were flummoxed.

Some supporters have turned sour on the former Alaska governor and moved on. Some have moved on reluctantly because, well, we have a country to save. Some folks have remained steadfastly devoted to Sarah Palin only. They refuse to even entertain the idea of supporting anyone else and many of them whole-heartedly still believe that she's running no matter what she says.

As a major supporter of Sarah Palin, I choose not to demonize or attack any of these folks. I've met many of them and spent the last few years building relationships and networks of passionate citizen activists. They have big hearts and boundless patriotism. They love the Constitution and are devoted to rooting out corruption in our government by putting government back on the side of the people.

Personally, I've spent most of my time since October 5 vetting the current candidates for president. I've done some reading up on their records and done some compare and contrast work between their actions and their rhetoric. It ain't pretty.

There are things to celebrate about each of the candidates. But like Sarah Palin stated in an interview on Fox News last Sunday, I haven't been able to get behind a candidate enthusiastically 100% just yet.

So when Sarah Palin told Eric Bolling on Fox Business Network last night that "it's not too late" to enter the race and "who knows what will happen in the future" instead of the expected "no" to his question on whether or not she might get back into this race, it's time to pay attention.

This evening on Fox News, Eric Bolling asked Carl Cameron about the reality of Sarah Palin getting into the race and he largely dismissed it but admitted there were large numbers of Republicans hoping that someone else gets into the race.

Here's the situation as I see it:

1. Mrs. Palin's interview on Sunday stated her general dissatisfaction with the field for the first time in such a direct and largely negative way. She even questioned whether any of them really get the danger we are in. That's a huge shift in her political analysis post-October 5. In each of her appearances since then she's been careful to give praise around to various candidates. In this interview, she very clearly has had a shift in her thinking. It's a shift on par with that pre-October 5 Greta interview where Mrs. Palin publicly mused about a title being "too shackley" for her. After this late September appearance the fire in the belly seemed to be extinguished and many of her supporters began worrying that night that she might opt out of the race.

Her growing disdain for the field brings to mind her repeated claims throughout 2011 that she would run if nobody else was in the race that could carry her message of reform. She apparently has decided that nobody in the race now can carry that message. I believe she is now at a crossroads. Does she jump in and save the day or does she hold her nose and pick the least objectionable candidate to try to prop up?

2. Mrs. Palin's comments regarding there still being time to enter the race and "shake things up" even post-Iowa were made in TWO interviews over the course of one day also mark a shift of sorts. In one interview, you could dismiss her comments as just a throwaway. Mentioning it in two interviews in one day coming roughly 24 hours after she dismissed the current GOP field? Well, that's something. It means that this is something that she intentionally wants us to hear. Why? Prior to this Palin has been very careful to always state that she has "no regrets" on her decision. These interviews run counter to that.

3. I am not of the mind-set that Mrs. Palin has always been running and that this is all a part of her master plan to run while not running. I know a lot of good folks who do believe that. I just don't. She clearly looked and acted differently when she decided not to run. I think she was waiting out the field for some time. I think, however, that something changed her mind in mid to late September regarding a presidential run.

4. Mrs. Palin isn't necessarily coordinating her campaign kickoff just yet, but folks who are dismissing her supporters as delusional are also off-base.

5. I don't even know that Mrs. Palin is reconsidering. I think she's open to it. I don't think you can see her comments in the full context and not at least concede that she's open to the idea. I think she's having serious doubts that the current GOP field can carry this message of reform. Is it enough to propel her into the race? Maybe. Is it worth telling folks to caucus for her in Iowa? I think it might be. As Rush Limbaugh commented, it is very easy to spell Palin.

6. Sarah has had every opportunity to tell the "reconsider" folks to stop. Her comments in both interviews, it seems to me, set off an additional internet firestorm about her intentions regarding 2012. There have already been Facebook groups, blog posts, and television ads run in Iowa in support of the reconsider movement. If she didn't want folks thinking that a simple tweet would correct the situation. No such tweet has materialized.

It could be that Sarah is just trying to "scare" the GOP field into adapting her message. Time for that approach seems to be running out however.

Sarah Palin's 3 interviews over Sunday and Monday were designed to get people thinking. Whether that leads to more vetting for the current crop of candidates or whether it culminates in her entering the race at some later date, it is a dramatic shift from the last 2 months.

Is it an earthquake?

I don't think people should read too much into her comments. I don't think they should read too little into them either. She promised Sean Hannity an "unconventional campaign" in the fall. I believe that she has the capacity and potential to deliver just that.

So the good folks in the reconsider movement should keep it up. Good common sense Constitutional folks in Iowa should take a long hard look at caucusing for Palin. Newt has slipped into a distant third in Iowa. Crazy Ron Paul (who is completely unelectable) and RINO Romney are currently the top dogs in Iowa. Bachmann and Perry are too low to matter. Santorum is surging, but has just caught up to Perry and Bachmann after a year of campaigning. Tea party folks might want to look at the idea of writing in Palin. A strong showing for Palin would probably do more to thwart the plans of the establishment at this point than anything. If Romney wins Iowa as it currently looks like he might, a strong showing from Palin could steal his thunder and jump start the conservative comeback. Palin could then get into the race or use her strong showing to again put pressure on the gang to get their act together and unite behind a non-Romney candidate. Either way the tea party wins.

Iowa just might shake things up after all. Given the terrible state of the GOP declared candidates, it can't come a moment too soon.

New Perry Ad

2011-12-23T15:48:00.000-05:00

The Rick Perry campaign continues to make excellent ads. This is an ad the campaign is currently running in Iowa. It should play well in the state and around the nation.

HUMILITY: Obama Claims He's the 4th Best President EVER

2011-12-17T20:57:00.000-05:00

The picture of humility, President Barack Obama, he who voted well over 100 times in the Illinois senate with the politically courageous vote of "Present" has declared himself the 4th most awesome president ever. This shouldn't surprise anyone since this humble man has been proclaiming himself alternately the reincarnated Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and FDR for years. In a recent CBS interview (which conveniently cut this portion out so as not to embarrass our precious national treasure) Mr. Obama said his accomplishments would out-do any president except for Johnson (which one sir?) Lincoln and FDR.

In related news, in order to demonstrate the "shared sacrifice" of "skin in the game" that the president constantly foists upon "soft" Americans, Mrs. Obama has decided that she will not be inconvenienced by a possible government shut-down. She will be leaving on time for vacation on a separate private jet. This little jaunt will only cost taxpayers an estimated additional $100,000 for the Obama 17+ day vacation in Hawaii. Good thing the tab will be split up among all of the American taxpayers so as to ensure sufficient skin in the game.

Obama Fails Basic Geography Repeatedly: A Collection of Gaffe Videos

2011-12-06T18:33:00.001-05:00

Our hard-working and esteemed President got himself all confused again. Hard-working in the sense that he has now played more golf than George W. Bush did during all 8 years and that he now also surpasses George W. Bush AND Bill Clinton COMBINED in terms of the number of fundraisers he has done this far into his FIRST term. And all of this as the vacation-obsessed first family prepares to embark on yet another 17 day vacation to Hawaii (or is it Asia?)

This time, he thought he was in Texas when he was actually in Kansas. Yes, it is a simple slip of the tongue. And if it only happened this one time, we'd let it go. But when he repeatedly has no idea about basic geography, you have to wonder if there's a problem. If Sarah Palin had made these repeated gaffes the media would be running 24 hour coverage of the event. Here's our befuddled president confusing Texas with Kansas:

Here's the "smartest president ever" according to one lunatic historian, confusing the number of states in our union:

Notice that Saul Alinsky's best disciple doesn't even pick up on the audience laughter at his gaffe and plows ahead with his idiocy.

During his nominating convention in 2008, Mr. Obama did a live feed video where he claimed to be in St. Louis just moments after correctly identifying himself as being in Kansas City. His video appears at the 20 minute mark. No need to suffer through Michelle Obama's speech. His gaffe claiming to be in St. Louis about a minute later. His daughters have to correct him. Awesome:

This gem from earlier this year shows Obama, who was at the time in Hawaii, claiming that he's in Asia. One would think given all of the scandal over his place of birth that he'd be careful to place Hawaii squarely in American territory:

Brighten someone's day and forward the link to this collection of Obama's greatest geography gaffes!

Ad Watch: New Iowa Ad by Newt, DNC Ad Attacking "Not Lifetime Politician" Mitt

2011-12-05T17:33:00.001-05:00

First up, a new ad being run by the Newt 2012 folks in the all-important state of Iowa. It's a very nicely done positive ad that extols the virtue of America a la Reagan's famously effective "Morning in America" spots. I think it will play well in Iowa for Newt, and with Cain out of the race, I believe that he will benefit the most. Recent polling suggests that crazed foreign policy ostrich in the tin foil hat Ron Paul is now making a strong run for second place in Iowa. If Paul wins Iowa, he will assure Romney the nomination. The man is far too old and crazed when it comes to foreign policy to make any serious run in the GOP primary.

Meanwhile, the folks over at the DNC are continuing their Mitt "Two Men Trapped In One Body" series with a new ad attacking career politician Mitt Romney's claims to not be a career politician. Of course, Mr. Romney should be excused for his lying on that issue. He's running for office (as he has done virtually non-stop since 1994 with a record of 1 win to 2 losses) for Pete's sake.

Excellent Ad on Mittstant Replay by Huntsman Campaign

2011-12-01T19:40:00.001-05:00

Jon Huntsman has some good ad people. This mash-up of Mitt's greatest hits demonstrates exactly why he is completely unelectable. In the day and age of internet, social networking, and YouTube, you can't simply say whatever you want and then change your story and claim you never said the previous statement. Yet Mitt, perhaps in an uprising against such technologies, seems to not be aware that a legion of videos exists of his "Greatest hits" remixed and mashed-up over and over again with a hip beat that the kids can kick it to.

If he wants to be taken seriously, he needs to stop trying Jedi mind tricks to convince us that he's never said this stuff before and he needs to come clean. Mitt needs to explain to the American people why it is that he suddently switched positions on EVERY MAJOR POLITICAL ISSUE. The American people will either buy it or not. But that's his only hope.

Meanwhile, his devastatingly horrific interview on Fox News begins to create an opening for Huntsman to capture the RINO wing of the party and become Romney 2.0. This is a very smart and savvy approach for the Huntsman campaign. Kudos.

Enjoy.

Official Sarah Palin Reconsider Ad

2011-12-01T16:15:00.001-05:00

This video is the official reconsider ad that a grassroots group of folks led by contributors over at Conservatives4Palin have produced and began airing on Iowa television. It's respectfully done and it's hard to imagine that Sarah Palin would object to anything in this ad.

As stated previously, it's likely that Mrs. Palin will not change her mind, but with the drastic change in the field since October 5 it is not unreasonable to think that she would take a long hard second look.

City on a Hill Political Observer fully supports the "Reconsider" movement and thanks all those dedicated conservative rogues who have contributed to this project.

Great GOP Ad Compares Obama & Carter

2011-11-30T19:51:00.001-05:00

This ad is very well done. This is why the GOP needs to get serious about defeating this man.

Hilarious Jimmy Kimmel Charlie Brown-GOP Debate Hybrid Video

2011-11-27T11:56:00.001-05:00

This video is awesome. I love everything about it.

On The Palin Reconsider Movement...

2011-11-27T11:11:00.001-05:00

UNCONVENTIONAL: Palin has repeatedly defied expectations

First, a disclaimer: After supporting Sarah Palin for 3 years, I remain an uncommitted voter in the 2012 presidential race. After investing 3 years into a Palin candidacy, I have wanted to remain cautious in my vetting of the candidates and not jump too soon. Part of that is due to the volatile nature of the race, for sure. Currently, I am looking seriously at both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum for president. Part of the reason for my delay is also because in 3 years of studying Palin, I've learned to expect the unexpected.

The inter-webs are a-buzzing with the news out of Conservatives4Palin that a commercial has been completed and will begin airing on Iowa television stations this week aimed at getting former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to reconsider her decision regarding the 2012 presidential race. This is something that has been building for some time. A long shot, sure. But not without merit.
A few observations:

1. The RECONSIDER movement is proceeding in a very respectful way. They are not doing anything that will hurt Sarah Palin's feelings as some have suggested. Additionally, if having people from across the country contributing toward and promoting a grassroots effort to show their support for your potential candidacy is something that would hurt your feelings, you have no business in politics. Palin has endured more horrendous media attacks than any candidate since Ronald Reagan. She certainly won't be crying over a bunch of folks telling her how great she is and that they really really want the chance to vote for her for President of the United States in 2012.

2. Sarah Palin is UNCONVENTIONAL. I'm not delusional. This is likely not going to change Palin's political trajectory. She will likely remain on the sidelines cheerleading for the GOP standard-bearer against Mr. Obama. HOWEVER, she has never done things conventionally, promised that this election cycle would be "unconventional" and has seen a field that seemingly lacks the ability to carry forth her message of sudden and relentless reform, common sense Constitutional conservatism AND simultaneously attack and destroy the institutional crony capitalism and the permanent political class that are colluding to destroy our republic. Each of the declared candidates falls short in AT LEAST one of those categories. It is reasonable to think that maverick mama grizzly Sarah Palin would bite the bullet to push her agenda forward if this entire field fumbles the ball that Sarah Barracuda passed to them on October 5.

3. The movement is GRASSROOTS, This isn't the George Soros sponsored OWS or the astro-turf establishment euphoria over the candidacy of Mitt Romney. This is a genuine movement of people inspired by Palin's remarkable political career and accomplishments in Alaska and her brief stint as the Vice Presidential nominee of her party. The very fact that a grassroots group can put something together like this after having nearly 2 months to accept her decision NOT TO RUN is remarkable and a testament to how quickly a Palin ground game would be assembled. In most states, there is at least the skeletal organization provided by Organize 4 Palin.

4. Sarah Palin has done UNEXPECTED THINGS repeatedly in her career. She challenged an incumbent mayor in Wasilla when nobody expected her to win. She won re-election handily when people thought she was toast. She resigned her posh appointment to the Oil and Gas Commission in Alaska in order to blow the whistle on corruption in HER OWN POLITICAL PARTY. She challenged a popular incumbent GOP governor in a primary--a governor who had been in statewide politics for over 30 years. Underfunded and underestimated, Palin triumphed on election day, a feat that she repeated later that year in the general election against the prevailing Democratic headwinds that year and a popular former governor Democratic candidate. Palin resigned her governorship to reclaim the narrative and push for the issues that mattered the most to her instead of just going along to get along. Nothing in her career has been EXPECTED or CONVENTIONAL. While unlikely, it is not unreasonable to believe that the UNCONVENTIONAL MAVERICK may choose to jump in this race after all.

5. CORRUPTION, CORRUPTION, CORRUPTION. With new revelations of rampant insider trading, crony capitalism and the unveiling of the sick symbiotic relationship between special interests, corporate fat cats and the permanent political class that infects BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES coming out each day, this political landscape has changed drastically from October 5. Sarah Palin is uniquely qualified to carry forth a message of reform and ethics in governance at a time when the lid is being blown off on just how slimy Washington truly is.

6. GOING ROGUE. Again, none of this is born out of a batch of Kool-Aid. Sarah Palin had reasons to sit out (which still baffle me) and will likely continue to do so. She has known about the reconsider movement for some time, however, and has never stopped people from proceeding. Knowing how considerate Palin is, one can surmise that she would have put the word out to stop the movement once people began investing large quantities of their own money into the effort. The fact that she has remained silent raises questions. Her supporters, however, were drawn to Palin as a political leader precisely because she showed a fearlessness in "shaking it up" and "calling it as she sees it" no matter the consequences to her own career. The reason that these folks were drawn to that is because they are cut from the same cloth. The "reconsider Palinistas" have every right to GO ROGUE and CALL IT AS THEY SEE IT in order to let Sarah Palin know how they feel about her as a potential candidate.

Unlike the mind-numbed zombies that chanted "yes we can" during Obama's ascendency in 2008, Palin's supporters are much like herding cats. They each have their own thoughts, opinions and priorities. Some have chosen to endorse other candidates in the race while some have moved on to down-ticket races in 2012. Even if Sarah Palin remains out of the race and eventually endorses someone, her followers will make their own minds up. Some will follow her endorsement, others will stick with the candidate they have chosen. And this is good both for the movement and for Palin. A rogue political leader taking on the status quo will need fellow independent rogues to help "shake it up" in the long struggle to restore Constitutional and fiscally sound governance in America.

This rag-tag group of political independents are not bound by party affiliation or the warm and fuzzies of the establishment cocktail circuit. These are real people interested in sudden and relentless reform. And like their leader, they tend to make waves and go against the flow. Their refusal to sit down and be quiet is a testimony to how strong this movement can be. Ever the political game-changing Goliath slayer, Sarah Palin will be proud of her feisty independent followers even if she ultimately doesn't agree with them. They are showing the spunk and resolution needed in the fight to fundamentally restore America by taking on the permanent political class and putting an end to the Obama revolution.

Game on?

A Visit to the Reagan Ranch!

2011-11-15T12:29:00.002-05:00

This past weekend, I was fortunate enough to take a trip to Santa Barbara, California to President Ronald Reagan's beloved Ranch, "Rancho del Cielo." Meaning "Ranch of the Heavens," on just one trip, one can see why President Reagan loved to get away from the hustle and bustle of D.C. to a place where he was be able to ride his horses and work the land.

Young America's Foundation saved the Ranch in 1998 to preserve its rich history and the legacy of the man who lived there. Way (and I mean way) up high in the mountains over looking the Santa Ynez Valley, this 688-acre ranch is breath-takingly beautiful. YAF held their annual West Coast Leadership Conference this weekend where students from around the country gather and learn tips on how to bring conservative values to their campuses. We heard from fantastic speakers such as President Reagan's son, Michael Reagan, YAF Vice President Kate Obenshain, Author Peter Schweizer, Congressman Sean Duffy (R-WI), Foreign Policy Expert Bruce Hershenson, and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.

The whole trip culminated into a tour of Reagan's Ranch. Edmund Morris, Reagan’s biographer, said when you go to the ranch, you can "find his soul." When you step off the bus and see the horses grazing and the fence made out of old telephone poles that he built himself, you can see the true character of our 40th President.

I got to go inside the house and see where he sat down with his team to write speeches and his chair next to the fireplace where he read his books. I saw his numerous saddles and riding boots. I saw some of his and Nancy's clothing still left in the closet.

President Reagan's undeniable sense of humor was not lacking from his home. There were stuffed jack rabbits mounted on the wall with antelope antlers glued to their heads that he called "Jack-elopes." When people asked what they were, he would tell them an outrageous story of their origins. There was framed copy of the front page of the New York Times from February 6th, 1911; Reagan's birthday. He used to joke that the Times was so liberal that they couldn't even print the birth of a future President on the front page. His secret service thought it would be funny to put the Presidential Seal on his lawnmower, and they called it Lawn Mower One.

A true insight into the character of President Reagan isn't what was in his house, but what wasn't. There were no giant photographs with foreign dignitaries or high tech gizmos. Nothing that showed off his Hollywood connections during his time in the movies. You might not be able to tell at all that this was the home of the President of the United States. The only two things in the house that indicates he was the President, is a plaque that said "Ronald Reagan: Statesman" and a beautiful Presidential Seal over the fireplace. That's it. (Unless you count Lawn Mower One.)

As we go further into the 2012 elections, many people are looking for another Ronald Reagan. I hate to burst some bubbles, but there has never been anyone like him, and never will be anyone like him. President Reagan was a true gift to the American people during a time when we needed him the most. What we can hope for now, is someone who can take the conservative ideals he held so steadfastly, and put them into practice during a time when they are greatly needed again. I encourage everyone to go to the Ranch if they have the chance. It will truly change your life.

Some Effective Newt Gingrich Ads

2011-11-10T11:59:00.000-05:00

Newt Gingrich is starting to catch fire with the GOP primary voters. He's currently in third place nationally in most polls, and he's now in second place in Iowa. He's done the hard work necessary to put together a comprehensive common sense Constitutional agenda of reform. While still not officially endorsing a candidate, City on A Hill Political Observer is very impressed with the specificity of Newt's solutions and the strong performances he has turned in at each of the debates. The strength and intelligence Gingrich has displayed at each debate has been as breathtakingly impressive as Rick Perry's multitude of gaffes have been breathtakingly disastrous.

Mr. Gingrich's website is also the most policy-specific of the candidates. His new contract and his solutions are fully fleshed out reasonable policy prescriptions for healing the Obama fundamental transformation that ails our nation's government and economy.

Finally, Mr. Gingrich's campaign seems to be the most responsive to the grassroots folks. The official campaign Twitter account frequently responds to and engages with grassroots folks on a daily basis. The strong social media presence combined with the former Speaker's outreach to Sarah Palin's supporters, bodes well for a campaign that actually looks eager to partner with the grassroots folks.

The first two videos are ads that his campaign has put out. The third video is Newt speaking out on the Agenda 21 issue. This is an issue that I know very little of myself, but it involves UN involvement in local communities. It's a huge area of concern for tea party activists and his response in this video should end any concerns on that front.

Rick Santorum Video on Family

2011-10-30T11:51:00.002-04:00

Here is an excellent life-affirming video put out by Rick Santorum's campaign. This is a heart-warming account of the Santorum family and the struggles that they have encountered with their special needs child.

A video like this gives an insight into the person running for president and could make a difference in early states like Iowa.

Grizzly Fest Video of Palin Friendly Blogs Includes City On A Hill!

2011-10-30T09:11:00.000-04:00

Here is a promotional video made for Grizzly Fest that includes our humble little blog among the rank and file of the American fundamental restoration movement started by Governor Palin.

It's such an honor to be included with such good folks and we look forward to continue working with them. We're going to be bringing on some new bloggers here and also looking to start a new blog focusing on the Restoration Principles in the days and weeks to come. Thanks for joining us for the journey.

Grizzly Fest was a great time connecting with like-minded folks to plan the way forward. Word that Governor Palin tried to call in herself made many of us smile. Of course, one of the nice take-aways was that her brother Chuck would continue to "work on" her to get her to change her mind. Enjoy the video and support these blogs.

Post-Palin Take on the GOP Field...

2011-10-23T19:11:00.002-04:00

Can Cain, Gingrich or Santorum deny Romney the nod?

Boy have things changed since I offered my last assessment on the field thus far back in May.

After Sarah Palin announced that she would not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for president, the field changed dramatically. Up until that point, many of us had been expecting Palin to get into the race and were assessing the field with a Palin candidacy as part of the equation.

This race was always going to be a race of Mitt Romney's RINO brigade versus a more palatable conservative tea party-infused candidate. For most of us, that candidate was Sarah Palin and we believed that she would have swooped in and defeated Romney and the establishment beginning in Iowa.

Now, it seems that common sense Constitutional conservatives need to be about the business of defeating Mitt Romney in the primary and Barack Obama in the general. The problem is finding a strong enough candidate to rally behind to take down the Romney coronation.

In essence, the race is now Mitt Romney's to lose. This is particularly sad given Romney's lengthy resume of malleable political positions each conveniently assuming a new shape beneficial to the next political office. It seems that when someone embraces one set of beliefs and approaches for one office because it is politically expedient to do so and then jettisons said political beliefs because they don't benefit him for the next political office; serious questions need to be asked about his integrity.

It is astounding that in spite of this, folks in the establishment can claim the mantle of "leadership" and "credibility" for Mr. Romney while pronouncing his "electability" over the other primary candidates.

Certainly people can change. Certainly we should applaud folks who embrace good political ideas. The problem is that when a candidate has a history of switching opinions on virtually every issue and then lying about past positions (as Mr. Romney has done regarding his Romneycare in recent debates and interviews as seen in this video by the Perry campaign) they emerge with very little credibility with the average voter. Their chameleon approach to political ideology strikes a chord with the cynicism that so many of us have toward the permanent political class and their crony capitalist enablers of the status quo and we quite simply don't believe them.

Additionally, Mr. Romney's recent inadvertent declaration that hiring illegals was wrong because, in his words, "I'm running for office for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals," helps to solidify the view that he is concerned with political success and not fealty to law or political ideology.

And that's not even considering his still very dangerous views of health care reform on how wonderful his crowning achievement of Romneycare is despite the actual results coming out of Massachusetts. Mr. Romney's socialist debacle is excused away by his supporters as just something he had to do in a blue state and not something that he'd replicate at a federal level. Mr. Romney's own words, however, have both echoed those supporters and contradictorily expressed an interest to use it as a model for the nation. On this same issue, Mr. Romney has jokingly claimed that if only Barack Obama had called him on health care reform we'd all be better off. This despite the fact that multiple reports have stated that his advisors did meet at least 12 times in the White House with Mr. Obama's nefarious socialist medicine enthusiasts during Obamacare's inception.

So when Mr. Romney attacks Obamacare while simultaneously propping up the rotting corpse of Romneycare as a glorious accomplishment, the voters are rightfully confused.

With Obama's secretive and dishonest governance along with the socialist albatross of Obamacare poised to be major points of attack for his opponent, Mr. Romney as a bearer of that message seems, at best, to be fatally flawed.

And yet this political chameleon is now sitting in second place in Iowa. A Romney victory in Iowa would end the contest before it begins and ensure a choice of "two very similar evils" in November.

To avoid that scenario, someone needs to take Romney down. Here is an assessment of Romney's competitors:

THE IRRELEVANT

Jon Huntsman, Gary Johnson, Buddy Roehmer represent the "LOL" crowd of presidential aspirants. There is no chance for this pack of political loons. Hunstman is a Democrat in a Republican primary while Roehmer and Johnson are just crazy. There is absolutely no chance (thankfully) that these folks will prevail in the GOP primary. They are merely the "LOL" side-show.

THE IMPLODING DYING STARS

Michele Bachmann had promise back in June, but her once lofty poll numbers have diminished into the single digits. With no executive experience and no real legislative record of accomplishment, Bachmann has virtually no path to recovery. Bachmann's problem is that while good on the issues, she is all talk and no accomplishment. It is very difficult to build a presidential campaign on a self-professed "fighter" who loses every battle she engages in. With her money problems and staff exodus, it appears that Bachmann 2012 is about to fold. Bachmann would do well to drop out prior to Iowa in order to save face. Even in her home state of Iowa, Bachmann's numbers are in the single digits. Her substantive contributions to the recent debates are always overshadowed by her obsession with telling us about her 1 million foster children, by making baseless lunacy-tinged claims like "Gardisal gives kids mental retardation because a crying stranger told me so"and with inane "jokes" like calling Cain's 9-9-9 plan the 6-6-6 plan for the "devil's in the details." Without a major media presence and implosion by other candidates, there is nothing left for Bachmann to do to reclaim her chances for the nomination. Hopefully she will choose to return to congress to work on the conservative values that she champions.

Rick Perry came out as a rock star governor of a big red state. Folks pronounced this as a two man race between Perry and Romney. And for a few weeks, Mr. Perry led in national polling and looked like a real solid frontrunner. Then reports surfaced of his fancying of individual mandates when it benefited his crony capitalist connections. He stumbled on that because people began realizing that like many politicians, Mr. Perry's tough conservative rhetoric didn't always match his actual governance. Daylight then appeared between Mr. Perry and the tea party. All was not yet lost, however, until he began participating in the debates. Perry's performances in the debates are horrific. They resemble more of a SNL skit than a presidential debate. He seems tired and irritable throughout and stumbles to finish sentences coherently. He often seems confused and has a dazed look on his face. His answers almost always lack any foundation in specifics and everything is reduced to generic conservative platitudes. That's bad enough, but when he can't even successfully recite the platitudes without error, serious questions emerge about his intellect and readiness. That's not to suggest that Perry is dumb. He's been governor of Texas for 10 years. He is clearly a smart man. His debate performances, however, reduce his public persona to Forrest Gump's less intelligent cousin. He has some great campaign commercials and some solid proposals. He cannot, however, recover from these debates. Especially not with 16 more of them to suffer through between now and March.

LAST MEN STANDING

In a campaign with a multitude of failed former frontrunners, only 3 serious contenders remain between Mr. Romney and his white whale of the GOP nomination. Without Sarah Palin to stop him, the following gentlemen remain:

Herman Cain is a charismatic non-establishment candidate from the tea party. He's brought a lot of excitement to the race and his newly minted status as national frontrunner is good for the party. Cain's success demonstrates the diversity in the conservative movement. He also brings a much-needed voice from the private sector. His career is one of finding solutions and his thinking is not limited by the chains of the career politician. He's recently begun to raise enough money to bulk up the campaign staff in early states like Iowa and South Carolina and his speeches are generating a lot of buzz. The problem for Cain is that he's not polished. That can be a good thing and is one of his selling points. As a non-politician, however, he sometimes gets into trouble. His usual area of concern is foreign policy where Mr. Cain has given some "word salad" responses to deeply serious foreign policy quagmires. Mr. Cain recently has come under fire for proclaiming a pro-life stance while enunciating the viewpoint of a pro-choice person. His words on the issue are, at best, confused and mangled, and quite possibly revealing of either a lack of understanding on the issue or a lack of transparency on his apparently pro-choice view regarding the legality of abortion. If Mr. Cain doesn't successfully end such confusion, his numbers will begin to drop. Already Mr. Cain has gone from clear frontrunner to co-frontrunner with Mr. Romney. And that was before the recent gaffes. I would expect that after this past week of gaffes, Mr. Cain's numbers will begin to decline. He's not yet fatally wounded and may not rapidly implode a la Bachmann or Perry, but he will no longer be leading Mr. Romney and that is troubling.

Newt Gingrich was proclaimed by this very blog back in May as "unelectable this side of 1994" because of his political and personal baggage. Indeed the implosion of his campaign in the late spring along with the mass exodus of his key campaign staff seemed to confirm that. Without Palin in the race, Mr. Gingrich has been methodically rebuilding his organization and carefully crafting his eventual return to the top tier with great skill. He also has a history of defending Sarah Palin and saying kind things about her like promoting her anti-crony capitalism and anti-establishment message. He's been the only candidate to stand up to the media. And then there are the debates. Mr. Gingrich's performances in the debates have been masterful. He has given smart, specific policy prescriptions to the current political ailments while his opponents have made gaffes and engaged in spats worthy of reality television drama. His consistently pitch-perfect performances in these debates have demonstrated the ability to eviscerate Obama in debates and a sophisticated understanding of policy and history. In short, he has looked the part of a president. Mr. Gingrich still has work to do to convince voters that he has learned the mistakes of his personal life and won't be repeating them. He also needs to continue working to prove to conservatives that he's not part of the permanent political class and that his past transgressions regarding common sense Constitutional conservatism are aberrations and not the norm in his thinking. He has, however, build a tremendous foundation on which to build a winning campaign.

Rick Santorum has been largely irrelevant to this campaign. One of the first folks to jump into the race, Mr. Santorum can't seem to generate any support or enthusiasm for his candidacy. His poll numbers have languished in the low single digits and his fundraising has been paltry at best. Yet, in this very fluid race, Mr.Santorum is one of the few to not mortally wound himself. His debate performances have been solidly conservative. His recent debate performances have allowed him to step up the vigor with which he defends the conservative agenda. He also has a solid organization in Iowa. If Cain falters, the anti-Romney tea party folks will be reduced to Santorum and Gingrich as the last remaining options. Should Cain diminish, expect it to be largely beneficial to both gentlemen. If Santorum could make himself appear as a credible top tier candidate, his numbers in Iowa could sky-rocket. Without the personal baggage of Gingrich, Santorum's appeal to conservative Christian voters in Iowa could propel him to a surprisingly strong finish in the Iowa caucus. Depending on how strong of a finish it is, it could knock several candidates out of the race and propel Mr. Santorum to South Carolina where he would have to build on his momentum in order to stay in the race.

Ron Paul remains in this category largely because he is still polling in the low double digits and with the fluid nature of this race, he technically remains a contender. The problem for Mr. Paul (besides his age) is his foreign policy. His foreign policy is largely the ravings of an isolationist lunatic who blames America for most of the world's problems and fails to see any danger in a world with modern technology and highly portable weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Paul's economic plan to cut $1 trillion from the national budget is praiseworthy, but his foreign policy would result in our complete annihilation within 6 months of his inauguration. Still a contender, Mr. Paul has no chance to really win the nomination because his foreign policy delusions removes him from serious consideration. He would be an excellent Treasury Secretary.

MARK MY WORDS THIS WILL BE AN UNCONVENTIONAL CAMPAIGN

This is where the race remains. It is a battle between Mitt Romney and Herman Cain-Newt Gingrich-Rick Santorum. This seems to be the path we are on. The only thing that could shake this up is a clear lack of a credible alternative to Romney as the final days before Iowa are upon us. It is possible that a candidate the stature of Mike Huckabee, Paul Ryan or, yes, Sarah Palin could decide to jump in to deny Romney his lock on the nomination. Someone like Palin could seriously derail Romney even at that late stage in the game. And she did famously proclaim to Sean Hannity that this cycle would be extremely unconventional. The race is already radically different than it was in May. By January anything is possible.

Excellent Ad by Rick Perry Explains Problems with Romney 2012

2011-10-23T17:33:00.000-04:00

Romney: "I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals"

2011-10-19T19:06:00.003-04:00

Romney-Perry smackdown worthy of a reality show

Mitt Romney let it slip last night.

In the middle of a mutual freak-out session with Texas Governor Rick Perry, Mr. Romney revealed just why so many of us have a hard time taking anything he says seriously.

Mr. Perry is understandably desperate after a string of disastrous debate performances has reduced him to single digits in national polling. As a result, he was on the attack last night. He launched into Romney on, of all things, illegal immigration.

Perry could have launched his attack on any important issue of the day. After all, Mr. Romney has had virtually every political position imaginable on virtually every political issue imaginable. And yet he chose the quicksand of illegal immigration on which to make his stand.

Perry has taken heat on this issue as well, what with all of the tuition discount door-prizes that his state lavishes upon illegals to congratulate them for their efforts at undermining our nation's security and rule of law. Don't like that idea? You don't have a heart.

His random tirade about Romney hiring illegals for lawn maintenance certainly didn't help him out on this front. Perry accused Romney of knowingly hiring illegals to cut the grass at Romney Manor. When Romney attempted to respond, Perry interrupted him. This caused Romney to lose his cool and freak out like a toddler.

It was a diminishing exchange for both candidates.

The real news-maker in the exchange, however, came from a throwaway line by Romney.

In attempting to explain away his illegal immigrant employees, Mr. Romney said:

"I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals."

And that about says it all. Romney the politician has consistently put public opinion and appearances above conviction. He's abandoned virtually every policy position when convenient and it has created a perception that he doesn't really mean anything that he says.

In the heat of the moment, Romney's defense against Perry's taunt was to shout about how he lectured the lawn company that because he was running for office he couldn't have illegals working there.

Instead of standing on the moral principle that hiring illegals is simply wrong any time because it undermines our rule of law, weakens our nation's security and slaps LEGAL immigrants adhering to our immigration laws in the face, Mr. Romney chose to highlight the impact on his political career as the driving force behind his aversion to illegal immigrants as employees.

It bothers Mr. Romney more that those darn illegals would foul up his political career than that hiring them is just morally and legally wrong.

It is just another glaring example of why 75% of GOP voters are hoping that Mr. Romney is not the nominee.

Hopefully, it's not true. Hopefully Mr. Romney has truly had a change of heart in his various evolving political positions. The problem is that he's running out of time to convince us that he's genuine and "hope" for true "change" is so last election.

In related news, Newt Gingrich had a very good night last night. A very good night indeed.

Romney's Moment? Our Response...

2011-10-10T17:54:00.001-04:00

Political twins or opposites, depending on Romney's mood.

With the departure of Sarah Palin from the presidential race for 2012, the dynamics have shifted dramatically. If you had asked me prior to the governor's decision if Mitt Romney had any chance of being the nominee, I would have told you "absolutely not."

With Palin gone, however the race is now Romney's to lose.

GOP has a long cherished history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by nominating the next-in-line has-been also-ran from the previous cycle. They are preparing to do it again.

This election cycle is not only about defeating Barack Obama. It's about replacing the permanent political class with down-to-earth real people. It's about enforcing the tenth amendment to the United State Constitution:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This election needs to be about restoring the proper order and balance between free markets, free people and a limited Constitutional government. Both parties have now become co-opted into opposite sides of the same coin, with the Democratic brand doing everything in it's power to destroy free market capitalism, promote socialism, and limit individual liberties through an ever-growing government usurpation of just about every American liberty you can think of. The GOP, on the other hand, ever the champion of the "free market system" has really become the puppet of major corporations hellbent on tilting the playing field in their favor and crushing any and all insolent small businesses that dare to defy their monopoly.

So taken together, the two parties are creating a very dangerous alliance that threatens to take America down the darkest path of her liberty-soaked history.

Mitt Romney's candidacy in 2008 was an abysmal failure. He came in third to John McCain and Mike Huckabee despite outspending both of their campaigns by a massive margin. Part of that had to do with the uninspiring nature to his public persona. The larger reason is that he lacks credibility after a career of political vacillation.

And yet in 2012, he is attempting to buy the nomination yet again. Romney is a disaster politically. The son of a member in good standing of the permanent political class, Romney was born to maintain the status quo. It's his thing.

When he ran in Massachusetts, the voters in Ted Kennedy's socialist utopia thought they were electing a Republican slightly to the left of the esteemed hero of Chappaquiddick. To their surprise, as Mr. Romney's blind ambition began to look to the ripe low-hanging fruit of the GOP presidential nomination post-Bush, he began lurching to the right.

This was not before he raised corporate taxes in an effort to improve the state's credit rating. Not wanting anyone to be left out, he also raised taxes on individuals to the tune of $750 million per year. These taxes targeted homeowners, gun owners, and folks getting married. In between these efforts, Mr. Romney proposed cutting income taxes, which was never realized by the legislative branch of Karl Marx enthusiasts in Massachusetts.

When he wasn't successfully raising taxes by increasing fees and closing loopholes, and in between his calls for tax cuts, Mr. Romney was busy calling for tax hikes. He called for an SUV tax and a greenfields tax on the development of ocean space. In 2003, tax-cutter/tax-hiker Romney refused to support the Bush tax cuts while pining away for an additional federal gasoline tax. To which Ted Kennedy likely said, "well done, son." He also opposes the flat tax. His record on spending isn't much better.

Romney's fiscal policies depict a deeply conflicted thinking where his preference is almost determined by what mood he's in that day. To simultaneously and repeatedly support and oppose taxes shows a double-minded man who cannot be taken seriously on this important issue.

Romney also ran for governor as a pro-choice candidate only to convert to the pro-life position just in the nick of time for his 2008 presidential run. His positions on other issues are also as riddled with double-speak and bait-and-switch rhetorical flourishes where he attempts to be all things to all people.

To change a position or two in a productive direction is to be applauded. To change positions on virtually every single issue when it politically benefits you is not. Perhaps Romney's conversion is sincere and not politically motivated. Even his recent statements have often been at odds with one another, like his deleted a line out of his recently published book when it was reprinted.

When someone changes that many political positions, they have a lot of explaining to do. And when they continue to support and oppose certain policies simultaneously in the same speech, voters tend to smell a rat. Such is the Romney stance on healthcare.

Nowhere is a Romney candidacy more disastrous than the healthcare arena. Romneycare, his proudest accomplishment, is a socialized medicine scheme that was used by President Obama as the blue print for his own federal behemoth, Obamacare.

And yet, as proud as Mitt is of his Marxian creation, he manages to deliver schizophrenic speeches demanding the repeal of Obamacare while boasting that if only Obama would have called him on the matter the nation would be better off.

Consider this excellent ad by the Perry campaign:

There is no guarantee what President Romney would do. That is, other than vacillate wildly on every vital issue to our nation. He simply does not have a core set of guiding principles or the political courage to act upon them. His survival of the fittest approach to governance will be a roller-coaster ride of miniature successes and mammoth defeats in his quest to maintain power.

And yet so many Republicans, even tea party folks, are now embracing Mitt Romney as the sensible alternative that can beat Obama in 2012. Sensible folks recommended Ford over Reagan in 1976, Bush over Reagan in 1980, Dole over anyone in 1996, and McCain in 2008.

It seems like the sensible folks who pick the next-in-line status quo maintenance candidate should probably sit down and let the common sense conservatives take the reigns.

At this moment it is important for common sense Constitutional conservatives to come together and defeat crony capitalism, socialism and the permanent political class in both parties that perpetuates this nonsense. To do this, the following steps will need to be taken:

Unless Sarah Palin changes her mind, all but one of the following GOP candidates will need to put country first and step aside to allow the tea party conservatives to unite against the party establishment:

Michele Bachmann
Rick Perry
Herman Cain
Newt Gingrich
Rick Santorum

Each of those folks, to some degree, generally represents a majority of conservative viewpoints. They all have flaws and blind spots. They all have weaknesses. Yet, they are the candidates we are left with who can compete with Mitt Romney for the nomination.

It is imperative that the common sense conservatives have a candidate that they can unite behind. As the primaries draw closer, these candidates need to take a hard look at the numbers and bow out. It doesn't matter what backroom deals they might have for the vice presidency, these folks need to put country first and unite behind a common candidate to take out the political opportunist that is Romney.

I write this as a registered Republican. I write this as a father and husband. I write this as someone who actually believed in the Reagan revolution of the 1980s and is unwilling to go silently into the dark night of socialism led by folks who claim to carry Reagan's mantle. It's time to take a stand.

Additionally, those folks who refuse to support status quo and refuse to allow the establishment to win need to get involved. Get involved in your local GOP organizations and tea party organizations. Make your voice heard. Keep your leadership honest and steel up their spines to do the right thing regardless of the political consequences. Work with them where possible, and where it isn't--primary them. Even if that has to be you. Just like the free market proves, without competition folks can get complacent and non-responsive to the very people they claim to be serving. It's time to give them the message that we are no longer for sale and will not stand for their duplicitous political cowardice.

Finally, here at City on a Hill, we are looking to unite the common sense Constitutional conservative rogues that found inspiration in the potential candidacy of Sarah Palin to begin building a powerful new conservative website and message board to counter establishment sell-outs and give a unifying place to give the rallying call to a new generation of Americans who will not allow this country to be squandered, socialized or radically transformed into something that the founders would revolt against.

Folks who are interested in joining our new venture should contact us immediately to begin making plans on how best to proceed. Folks who get involved in local politics and choose to primary candidates should send us their story to share here for the larger conservative community.

Mr. & Mrs. Corporate-cronyism-establishment-statue-quo-opportunists, Game on!

The Post-Palin Political World

2011-10-06T19:59:00.000-04:00

Sarah Palin has left the elected political arena and it pains me to write this (hopefully temporary) political obituary.

The unthinkable has happened. The bold leader that we need to take on the establishment and Barack Obama has decided to stay on the sidelines writing op-eds and making media appearances.

For those of us who have spent the last few years defending her reputation and insisting that she had what it takes to run for and be President of the United States, this stings just a bit. For years we've had to fight off the allegations that Palin is just angling to be the conservative Oprah and build a media empire and yet yesterday, she clearly rejected the opportunity of seeking higher office and proving her critics wrong.

We insisted. We persevered. We talked (and wrote) until we were blue in the face about her qualifications, her motives, her integrity and her potential as a candidate for president. We insisted to grassroots folks, political operatives, family members, friends and co-workers that Palin was the leader that we were waiting for.

And yesterday it all came crashing down as Sarah Palin, the fighter who took on corruption in Alaska, the simple hockey mom that unseated an incumbent mayor to take the town of Wasilla to the next level, the woman who took on an incumbent Republican governor and the entire establishment and won, the lady who took on big oil and made them beg for mercy and finally, the woman who inspired millions of Americans to get off of their couches and get involved in the political process just walked away from a fight.

The undefeated gave up fighting like a girl and seemingly surrendered. The bit pull seemingly yelped a simple and meek "game off." And suddenly phrases like "you don't get into politics to do the easy thing" and lines about boats not being made for the safety of the harbor sounded like the hollow empty rhetoric of a typical politician instead of the inspiring battle cry of a visionary leader. And sadly, taken together with her resignation from the governorship, Sarah Palin has just (incorrectly) confirmed to countless Americans that she is in fact every bit the unqualified quitter that we have been warned about.

This isn't what was supposed to happen here. Sarah Palin is meant for bigger things than a pair of pom-poms. And the deeper sadness that those of us who have followed her career feel is that we know that she is better than this.

Let it be clear: I still love Sarah Palin for what she has done for her state and for America. I will always honor her and admire her for that. I'm not one of those who believes that she did this all for attention or to get rich. And I believe that it was Sarah Palin's candidacy for Vice President in 2008 that largely inspired the tea party movement that is so important today. I wish nothing but the best for the Palin family and cannot thank her enough for all that she's done to advance conservatism.

I am, however, disappointed and disillusioned beyond belief. And I'm a bit bewildered at what it is that some of her followers intend to "stand by" her and "follow" her to. The passion in her Op-Eds and media appearances was made so by the understanding that this was a fighter. This was a woman who thought like us and was willing to lead the charge against Barack Obama. Palin has now rejected that role in favor of a supporting role as a cheerleader on the sidelines. And other than being groupies that follow her around the speaking circuit and sharing links to her media appearances, it's not quite clear what anyone would be following her to do.

And that is what is so frustrating to so many of us. We've spent years fighting off the insane notion that Sarah Palin would be a better cheerleader than a leader only to have Palin herself don the cheerleader uniform at the last minute instead of suiting up for the big game.

Some devoted supporters claim this is Palin's brilliant move to not retreat but reload in some bizarre way to defeat Obama by not running. That's just not true. America needed a bold principled fighter for sudden and relentless reform and Mrs. Palin chose to do ring-side commentary rather than get into the ring herself. She told us herself that it was important that we didn't just replace Obama, but did so with the right person. This is not a brilliant move on her part. This is a shoddy plan B where the former Alaska governor attempts to make lemonade from her lemon of a situation.

This was Palin's moment. This was her time and there is no doubt in my mind that if she answered the call that her victory would have been huge and paradigm-shifting for years to come.

According to her public pronouncements on the matter, two main things seem to be the focus of her refusal to engage: family concerns and the "shackles" of a title.

Nobody can fully understand the torment that her family has had to endure in the last few years. That she would choose to put family over career and opt out is certainly understandable. No parent can fault her for this decision. The timing, however, is absolutely terrible and easily could have been avoided.

Today's appearances seemed to indicate that Palin was going to run but the family suddenly decided against it. The problem with this is that the media and her political opponents have savagely assaulted her family since August 2008. This is not some last minute shocking revelation that has emerged. Since Piper seemed to be on board with running, it had to be the older children who were against it. These are folks who are adults and who knew 3 years ago what a campaign would bring for the family. While there is certainly no reason to fault Sarah Palin for putting her family first, there is no reason why this decision couldn't have been announced months or even years ago. The nasty hostile environment that her children would face in a presidential campaign is the same reality they have been existing in for 3 years now. And make no mistake, if Palin attempts to remain "engaged" in the national political discussion, the folks threatening and attacking her family are going to continue. Simply choosing to not run for the title will not immunize her family from the scathing attacks of her enemies.

By allowing this process to drag into October, Palin has seriously damaged her political name and her integrity in the eyes of many grassroots folks. They deserved better than to be told this late in the game that the game had, in fact, been cancelled. Leaving the arena now validates (albeit incorrectly) in the minds of most voters the unqualified, unelectable quitter meme that her supporters have fought so hard against.

Leaving the arena with no suitable alternative candidate to take on the crony capitalism that she has railed against has served as a notice to the establishment that business as usual will continue albeit with a wink and a nod and an empty rhetorical flourish about the horrors of it all on the campaign trail.

"Just words, just speeches" offered by non-candidate and Fox News Contributor Sarah Palin will not be enough to stop crony capitalism. We need a candidate. Electing good folks to the senate and house will not be enough. We need a president to seal the deal.

Leaving the arena also announces open season on the families of Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and any other conservative candidates running for state offices across the country (Mitt Romney's family should be fine as the establishment and media chosen one.) It sends the clear message: If you attack a candidate's family savagely and relentlessly, you will be rewarded with their eventual submission. Even the strongest maverick cannot withstand the attacks. Once the mighty Wasilla Warrior has fallen, the venomous hatred of the left will now begin its work on the families of the candidates. Such will be the legacy of Palin's surrender on the families of other conservative candidates.

As for the title? Well, certainly Sarah Palin can have an impact as the author of powerful Facebook notes, pithy tweets and as an occasional media personality. She cannot have the impact of a presidential candidate. And as for the shackling part? We want an unshackled person to run for president and tell it like it is. Palin as a candidate wouldn't be any more shackled than she is now.

Yes, in order to hold the elected officials accountable and to enact actual policies, Sarah Palin needs a title. It's not enough to help drive the debate when there are no fighters in the arena. The team with the best cheerleaders will not win the game if the best players refuse to suit up.

Palin will be unable to influence much of the actual policy-making in Washington after her refusal to engage in 2012. Her appeal and influence has been largely because of the possibility that she would run and because of the sheer fearlessness of her approach. Now, she is just one among many political pundits who will opine about the issues of the day.

A former governor with no apparent political aspirations also loses a lot in terms of influence. Some of her supporters are already talking 2016. It seems, however, that Palin has chosen a different path. This was her window of opportunity and she chose to shut it. In terms of elected politics, she will now likely be a political footnote akin to Geraldine Ferraro. Certainly a year is a lifetime in politics and Palin is young enough to consider running in 4 or 8 years. It will be a very long road to travel, however, to convince people that she's serious after the long drawn out disappointment of this cycle. Given her amazing skill-set, it's not something that is impossible, but at least right now, Palin gives no indication that she even remotely wants to do it.

She can and will be successful in her new cheerleader role in the same way that Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Tammy Bruce, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are successful. She may even outpace those accomplished individuals. But Palin's voice will now merely be one of the cacophony of conservative talking heads opining about all things politics and saying what people should do. Make no mistake, however, that while Palin can make a difference with this approach, it is nowhere near what President Palin could have accomplished.

And as for the folks who she will help elect? Without a bold president to lead them, they will have less incentive to rebuke the seductions of crony capitalism and establishment prestige. Some will stand, others will fall. The establishment will continue to marginalize her and many of the folks who have supported her in the past will be busy supporting other candidates and listening to their messages.

Sarah Palin will always be known for her work on behalf of conservatism, and for that I will always admire her. But for me, a large question will always remain of what could have been if Mama Grizzly had stepped into the arena and saved the day. And that's not something that any amount of tweets or Facebook posts can make up for.

Game off, at least for now in the presidential race.

Palin Allows Establishment To Win

2011-10-05T19:21:00.002-04:00

Sarah Palin announced today that she isn't running for president.

It's an unfortunate decision for those folks interested in restoring integrity to our government.

It's certainly understandable that Palin wouldn't want to put her family through the struggle of a campaign. We wish the Palin family the best of luck.

As for politics, her future has been seriously diminished. While this decision is understandable, it is a decision that could have been announced six months or even a year ago. Nothing has changed. The media has savaged her family for 3 years. Dragging this out until October was not necessary.

She will attempt to still have a seat at the table of public opinion, but her year long delay of this announcement has marginalized her credibility for many grassroots folks. She will not longer be greeted as the courageous fighter for conservatism. Now, she will be the woman who walked away from a nation-wide army of grassroots folks willing to work their tails off for her.

I will always admire Sarah Palin for her work in Alaska and for her support of conservatism. But this drawn out surrender is a bitter pill to swallow and it will be awhile before I can fully process this.

Now we must begin the work of finding the best of the rest.

Each of the current crop of candidates is seriously flawed. We need to start looking at their records and deciding which one we could live with.

I will be posting more in the coming days as I begin the search for a candidate as a truly undecided and unenthused voter.

New Jersey 4 Palin Take on Christie 2012

2011-09-29T22:32:00.001-04:00

Christie 2012...no threat to Palin.

Over at the official site for New Jersey 4 Palin, we have posted a new entry on Chris Christie's record vs. the rhetoric. It covers some of the main problems he will face in a 2012 race and demonstrates why he will largely pull from Romney's support and likely experience a rapid drop in polling after his full record gets the national treatment:

Chris Christie is probably the most conservative governor the Garden State has had in decades, if not ever. When you stop to consider, however, that our last 2 GOP governors were Tom Kean and Christie Whitman, both of whom are slightly to the left of Karl Marx ideologically, you begin to understand that that isn’t saying much.

Should Christie get into the presidential mix, his run won’t impact Sarah Palin much. His support will largely come from the establishment folks, those currently enamored with 2008 re-tread Mitt Romney. His entrance would be the political death knell for Romney 2012 (at least temporarily) as he would usurp Romney’s top tier establishment position in the GOP field.

Like Rick Perry’s rapidly diminishing national prospects, Christie’s juggernaut into the top tier would be derailed as soon as national conservatives began understanding his actual record.

Folks will be surprised to learn that conservative macho man Christie timidly entered the New Jersey political landscape by refusing to even state publicly that he was a conservative. Christie’s name had been bandied about for years in the state as someone who might run for various political openings. When it became clear that he was thinking about running for governor in 2009, the state-run media network of NJN (yes we subsidize mediocre television here) got the scoop in late 2008. When asked if he was a conservative or a moderate Republican, Mr. Christie answered:

“What I am is somebody who has always been committed to the best in public life and I think…again…all these labels and the things that people try to do when they’re playing politics demean public debate. If any candidate presents themselves for office, I would suggest that people shouldn’t judge them by the labels that anybody puts on them. They should judge them by the words that come out of their mouths and the actions and deeds that underlie their political and public career.”

Awesome intro for someone looking for a leadership post in the “No Labels” group, but not exactly an inspiring act of conservative leadership. He’s not even willing to publicly state that he’s a conservative. Voters in 2012 are looking for a fighter, and Christie’s image seems to fit the bill. He seems like a scrappy go-getter. But when it comes to ideological arguments, however, Mr. Christie drapes himself in the pale pastels of the RINO line and not the bold colors of a Reagan or a Palin. In fact, in that same interview, Christie refused to even answer whether he was pro-life or pro-choice. (He’s been both.)

He even used Barack Obama to narrate one of his campaign ads the following year.
On illegal immigration, Mr. Christie told a Latino Leadership Forum in 2008:

“Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime,” Christie told more than 60 residents and town officials. “The whole phrase of ‘illegal immigrant’ connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime.”

“Don’t let people make you believe that that’s a crime that the U.S. Attorney’s Office should be doing something about,” he added of entering the country illegally. “It is not.”
Did you read that right? Chris Christie, U.S. Attorney, actually claimed that someone sneaking into our country illegally is not doing anything illegal. Does that sound like the courageous leadership needed to combat Obama?"

The post concludes that:

Nobody knows what Christie will do in 2012. If he becomes a national candidate, however, voters will soon discover that Christie is best described by the words of William Shakespeare, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” and that they will be better served supporting a mom from Wasilla who took on and defeated two entrenched incumbents, the oil industry, and the permanent political class in Alaska.

You can read our complete post by visiting the New Jersey 4 Palin official website here.

Netanyahu Slams UN and Anti-Semitism; Obama Equates Jews to "Janitors"

2011-09-26T17:39:00.002-04:00

PM Netanyahu delivered his historic speech to the UN

What a contrast in leadership between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traveled into the belly of the beast this week to address the glaringly anti-semitic United Nations in a powerful speech extolling the virtue of Israeli democracy and efforts toward peace, while simultaneously slamming the international body of anti-semitic busybodies.

Netanyahu made the case that Israel, not the Hamas-led palestinians, is the one working for peace and that the United Nations is wrong to continue condemning Israel while turning a blind eye to radical Islam and crazed dictators:

"And it's here year after year that Israel is unjustly singled out for condemnation. It's singled out for condemnation more often than all the nations of the world combined. Twenty-one out of the 27 General Assembly resolutions condemn Israel -- the one true democracy in the Middle East.

Well, this is an unfortunate part of the UN institution. It's the -- the theater of the absurd. It doesn't only cast Israel as the villain; it often casts real villains in leading roles: Gadhafi's Libya chaired the UN Commission on Human Rights; Saddam's Iraq headed the UN Committee on Disarmament.

You might say: That's the past. Well, here's what's happening now -- right now, today. Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon now presides over the UN Security Council. This means, in effect, that a terror organization presides over the body entrusted with guaranteeing the world's security."

The theater of the absurd! Priceless. And indeed it is.

Fully aware that Israel's former ally America would not stand up for them in the current international farce demanding that terrorists be given credibility and their very own place at the international table, the bold Netanyahu stared down this international gaggle of anti-semitic blowhards. Those deranged diplomats who dare to make a moral equivalent between a peace-loving democracy and a people so committed to peace that they elect terrorists to govern them, and send rockets and suicide bombers into civilian marketplaces on a regular basis.

So brazen are the peace-loving palestinians that while they beg for statehood here in New York, folks back home killed an Israeli father and his baby by throwing rocks at his car causing it to overturn.

Of course, peace isn't the goal of many in the United Nations. Having Libya chair a "human rights" commission should tell you that. Unless that commission was a "how-to" workshop on the successful ways to commit human rights abuses and have the international community laud you for it.

And of course, Saddam Hussein's Iraq chairing the disarmament committee while violating 16 United Nations Resolutions and 30 Security Council Statements is also quite revealing. Perhaps he won them over when he gassed his own people and put them in mass graves?

One would have to believe that the good-hearted tolerant folks at the United Nations are criminally stupid or naive to believe that they really stand for peace, disarmament of rogue dictatorships or human rights in any way, shape or form with a track record like this. And like ostriches, so many leaders in the international community pretend to see nothing.

They look on as the UN attacks Israel repeatedly while saying nothing to her terrorist aggressors. They give the podium to genocidal madmen like Iran's Ahmadinejad. They deal with the world as they wish it to be, not how it exists in reality. Such an approach is disastrous.

Virtually alone on the international stage since the departure of President George W. Bush, Prime Minister Netanyahu must take up the anti-terrorism mantle himself or face Israel's annihilation. Speaking of the growing threat of Jihad, Netanyahu warned of a new international malignancy:

"That malignancy is militant Islam. It cloaks itself in the mantle of a great faith, yet it murders Jews, Christians and Muslims alike with unforgiving impartiality. On September 11th it killed thousands of Americans, and it left the twin towers in smoldering ruins. Last night I laid a wreath on the 9/11 memorial. It was deeply moving. But as I was going there, one thing echoed in my mind: the outrageous words of the president of Iran on this podium yesterday. He implied that 9/11 was an American conspiracy. Some of you left this hall. All of you should have. (Applause.)"

As he then put it: "Can you imagine that man who ranted here yesterday--can you imagine if he got nuclear weapons?" He continued then to warn of this growing threat and the danger of ignoring it:

"Millions of Arabs have taken to the streets to replace tyranny with liberty, and no one would benefit more than Israel if those committed to freedom and peace would prevail.
This is my fervent hope. But as the prime minister of Israel, I cannot risk the future of the Jewish state on wishful thinking. Leaders must see reality as it is, not as it ought to be. We must do our best to shape the future, but we cannot wish away the dangers of the present.
And the world around Israel is definitely becoming more dangerous. Militant Islam has already taken over Lebanon and Gaza. It's determined to tear apart the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and between Israel and Jordan. It's poisoned many Arab minds against Jews and Israel, against America and the West. It opposes not the policies of Israel but the existence of Israel."

And there it is. The false choice presented to Israel in this whole peace process exposed for the world to see. The Hamas-led palestinians are not arguing with Israel over policies and land (although they are convenient cover stories). They are arguing over the right of Israel to exist. The very governing party of the palestinian people, Hamas, has the stated goal of the destruction of Israel in its founding charter. They have not publicly used that charter in recent years, but the leadership has vowed absolute loyalty to the charter and indicated that the destruction of Israel remains in effect.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has correctly identified the true agenda of Hamas. Their refusal to recognize the state of Israel pre-dates the settlements in question today. Their goal is to destroy Israel through any means necessary. Hamas' current approach is through international "diplomacy" because there are so many anti-semitic elements floating around in the United Nations with which to ally itself with.

In the words of former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, "We intend to remain alive. Our neighbors want to see us dead. This is not a question that leaves much room for compromise."

There is little room to compromise or negotiate with people who want you dead.

Netanyahu's speech was nothing short of remarkable. He is the Winston Churchill of our time. This is the "never surrender" speech to a world ignoring the threat of evil once more. And like Churchill, history will credit Netanyahu's bold leadership as a bulwark against the onslaught of Jihad.

In related news, President Obama today confused "Jews" with "Janitors" in a speech demanding that stingy billionaires pay more in taxes. One can only speculate what the slip reveals about the president's real views of the Jewish people. "Jews" does not remotely sound like "janitors" so one has to wonder what caused the president to have Jews on his mind as he lambasted the stinginess of billionaires.

Perhaps it was the new poll indicating that Jewish voters are running away from the president in a mass exodus of financial and electoral support erosion. Or maybe it was the existence of Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin. Who can know? After all, he is the same man who praised the contributions of Islam to America by singling out the Treaty of Tripoli as a good thing.

Whatever motivated his slip-up, we can at least be happy that while America may have a hapless leader unable to stand against the threat of terrorism, all is not lost as long as we have Benjamin Netanyahu.

Perry Romneyizes Himself, Opens Door For Palin

2011-09-24T18:08:00.000-04:00

Fumbles by Perry, Romney, Bachmann make room for Palin

This week's debate of the GOP presidential gaggle may just have been a game-changer.

Going into this debate the race was basically a two person contest (with the third frontrunner, Sarah Palin, waiting in the wings) between Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. The general consensus was that Perry was pulling largely from the tea party and right side of the GOP while Romney was rolling in the mud with the RINO brigade.

This came after Michele Bachmann's campaign imploded like a dying star. Bachmann, riding high in the polls in June and July has seen her numbers plummet. Her recent claims that Perry's government-mandated Gardasil injections for little girls led to mental retardation may have jumped the political shark. The devastating political point to be made on this issue was Perry's use of a government mandate, a decidedly non-conservative position held by Barack Obama and Mitt Romney when it comes to healthcare. On that Bachmann could have eviscerated him. Instead, she went for the ludicrous in repeatedly asserting that a random tearful woman claimed her daughter had mental retardation from the drug.

That may or may not be true, but it sounds like a tin foil hat conspiracy theory. Bachmann continues to make the assertion with the cover that she's "not a doctor" and that it was just something that his tearful lady told her. This is troubling on two fronts: First, that Bachmann doesn't have a shred of medical data right now to support such a claim. Second, because the woman trying to win the presidency is comfortable parroting on national television something that a complete stranger in the throws of an emotional breakdown shared with her only minutes earlier. Repeatedly. Not exactly a profile in political judgment.

In the past week, Bachmann's national standing has been reduced to a paltry 5-8% (behind Ron Paul in at least one poll). Gone are the glory days of the double digit-just-within-reach-of-the-frontrunners status that she enjoyed. Even crotchety political hack Ed Rollins jumped ship for health reasons. (Perhaps he was accidentally injected with Gardasil?)

Bachmann would do well to drop out of the race before things get worse for her and salvage her once-promising career in the House of Representatives where she can be a fighter for tea party values in the legislative arena. Her voice is very much needed in that fight.

None of the other candidates (Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, Gary Johnson, Newt Gingrich or Buddy Roehmer) seem to be able to break out of single digits. And time is running out. The lack of cash doesn't seem to be helping.

In the debate, Perry's greatest strength (his perceived solid conservative political courage) was decimated in the exchange over free tuition to illegal aliens. Embracing the rhetoric of his former colleagues in the Democratic party, Perry claimed anyone against such handouts to folks who sneak illegally into this country while millions of folks around the world wait in line was "heartless" while sanctimoniously grinning at his own compassion for law-breaking.

It didn't help that he's still against a border fence on the grounds that America can do a lot of things, but building a simple fence along her border is beyond her capabilities. It also didn't help that he seemed incredibly ill at ease and unable to coherently espouse some of his policy positions. Even attacks on Romney seemed like he was searching for the next scripted word. And the inauthentic fumbling in the midst of such attacks delivered as much damage on Perry as it did to Romney.

Make no mistake, though, the Perry and Romney boxing match also damaged Romney. While reminding voters that Romney has been an all of the above candidate on virtually every issue, the argument also delivered one of the most politically ludicrous (albeit hilarious) moments in the debate. Romney actually had the political cajones to actually chide Perry for changing political positions. Romney, the ~~liberal~~ ~~moderate~~ conservative who is ~~pro-choice~~ pro-life and supports ~~tax increases~~ tax cuts and ~~spending increases~~ spending cuts while supporting the state-run government mandate variety of socialized healthcare and simultaneously opposing the identical federally run variety considers himself the picture of political stability and credibility. He even lied outright about a statement that Perry rightly pointed out had been deleted from his book when the updated edition came out.

Perry came away from this debate extremely damaged. The talking heads such as Dick Morris (who earned his credibility as a political prognosticator by correctly predicting the 2008 matchup of Hillary Vs. Condi) insist that Romney scored major points in the debate and would reap the benefits of Perry's demise.

Maybe. But the problem with Romney is that he has been so politically duplicitous that the vast majority of tea party folks and many in the GOP no longer listen to a word that he says. He's lost all credibility and no longer possesses enough political clout to re-invent himself for the tenth time. So Perry's loss is not Romney's gain.

Who did gain? Well among the also-rans, Herman Cain scored some major points. He won today's Florida CPAC poll by a wide margin. Newt Gingrich presents himself well in the debates, but he's got the same credibility gap that Romney has. Santorum is a good guy but can't seem to generate any excitement. And Huntsman and Johnson simply amuse as dueling Don Knotts doppelgangers.

Perry's collapse will free up mainly tea party support. That tea party support is not going to Romney. And Romney's support will begin collapsing and heading to ~~Don Knotts~~ Jon Huntsman or the late entry of Chris Christie. In primaries, however, the tea party and the conservative wing of the party will be picking the winner this time. Not the media, the establishment or the ruling class RINOs desperately pushing the abrasive New Jersey governor into the race.

No, the person who benefited the most from this debate is Sarah Palin. Every day the justification for her entrance into this race gets bigger and bigger. Her national polling has dramatically improved and the crazed scouring of her emails, the documentary of her political career and her savvy political op-eds and speeches have been driving the political debate for months. Case in point: She gives a speech on crony capitalism and suddenly all of the GOP field is obsessed with rooting it out. Even folks who have been sidled up to its teat for some time.

With Perry on the verge of collapse, Palin's moment has arrived. With SarahPAC declaring her "on the verge" of her decision and with the political stage set for her arrival, expect Sarah Palin to enter into this race in short order and to immediate front-runner status. Unlike previous front-runners Romney, Perry and Bachmann, however, Palin has been the most thoroughly vetted national candidate since Reagan. Where they all took dramatic nose-dives in support under such attacks, Palin's candidacy will demonstrate the teflon of Reagan. With Palin in the race, the tea party will finally have a credible candidate with a record AND matching rhetoric of sudden and relentless common sense Constitutional conservative reform. It will quickly change the race into an establishment versus Palin race.

And that's a contest that the Mama Grizzly has won before to the tune of landslide elections of 75% of the vote and 80% plus approval ratings for the majority of her term as governor.

Perry's stumble simply opened that door. Mama Grizzly is about to get all mavericky and roguish on us as she barrels through to the nomination and the presidency. Game on.

NJ for Palin: AAA Palin Vs. AA Obama

2011-08-16T00:31:00.000-04:00

"After Palin's tenure in Alaska, the state's credit rating was RAISED by Moody's from AA1 to AAA as a direct result of Palin's financial stewardship.

By contrast, Barrack Obama's glorious management of our nation's fiscal health has resulted in the very first downgrade of the nation's credit from the esteemed AAA rating to an AA+ by S&P. "

Read the whole post over at NJ 4 Palin!

Iowa & the State of the Race

2011-08-13T11:31:00.002-04:00

Today is the Iowa straw poll.

Will it matter? Not really.

The Iowa Straw Poll typically weeds out a "contender" or two. That is, usually people who have a decent shot at winning the nomination but who are not currently in the frontrunner status. The frontrunner can live on. Also RINOs usually come away unscathed because conventional wisdom says that Iowans aren't big fans of RINOs. In 2000, Elizabeth Dole dropped out of the race after not doing so well in Iowa. In 2008, Sam Brownback dropped out of the race. To be sure, someone will be dropping out. It's just a question of who. The most likely folks to drop out of the race would be Pawlenty or Santorum--or both.

Tim Pawlenty needs a finish in the top 3 to remain in the race. If Pawlenty finishes as low as his national polling suggests, the former Minnesota governor will have little reason left to stay in the race. Without much cash and without any measurable support, he will be forced to confront the reality that this election is not going his way. He should be out by Labor Day.

Rick Santorum has also publicly stated that if he doesn't finish well this weekend, he too might be out of the race. Rick had a solid performance in the debate the other night which may propel him to a higher finish than expected, but again, without a significant performance in the poll, Santorum, who has already been finding financial and public support elusive, will be a politically dead man walking.

Michele Bachmann needs also to finish on top. Expectations are key here and the expectation continues to be that Bachmann or Paul will win the straw poll. If she doesn't win or come in a respectable second or third, Bachmann will also find herself scrambling to shore up her national support. She might not drop out with a poor showing, but she would drop out of the top tier of contenders.

Members in good standing of the RINOcracy Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman will wear their defeat like a badge of honor as they resume their tour of the cocktail party elite circuit, assuring the chosen ones that they will not rock the boat or allow the common rabble to have any influence in their administration.

At this moment it seems likely that Pawlenty and Santorum will be out of the race after this. Gingrich may still have the financial support to remain a little longer and could benefit from their departure. He looks to continue to languish in the second tier of also-rans. Herman Cain will continue on undaunted because that's what he does. He's a business man who doesn't give up.

In terms of results, I expect Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann to do well. A victory by Paul is likely, although given the well-known fact that he's basically buying this poll, it won't be a victory with any real merit.

And then there's Sarah Palin.

Both Rick Perry and Sarah Palin are on the verge of entering the race. Rick Perry is allegedly saying something about it today at the RedState gathering in South Carolina. This fact has angered Iowans who think he is upstaging their event. That means that Perry, although he may play well in Iowa later on, will not be a successful write-in candidate today.

Palin, on the other hand, has the potential to score an upset here. Her arrival in the state yesterday was met with massive enthusiasm and political analysts as far left as Democratic strategist Joe Trippi have been saying from what they've seen of the folks at the fair that if Palin was on the ballot she would walk away with it decisively.

If Palin even finishes in the top 3 or 4, the story of Ames will largely be the success of a yet -as-undeclared candidate via a write-in campaign. It will continue to strengthen Palin's hand. I expect her to place here. It may not be 1 or 2 or 3 but I don't think Palin will be dead last either.

Coming out of the straw poll, this GOP race seems like to come down to a Palin-Perry-Romney race. Things can and will change by the Iowa caucus in January of 2012, but as we begin to head down the final stretch to Iowa, it is becoming clear that Pawlenty, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, Huntsman, McCotter and Johnson are the also-rans. They have failed to catapult to the lead yet or generate any real excitement. Cain is popular among many of us tea party folks, but in a race also containing Bachmann and Palin, he doesn't have enough of a base to be a contender. He would be an excellent Commerce Secretary under President Palin, however.

Ron Paul, meanwhile, has seen his political strand of libertarianism enter the mainstream of GOP politics. His voice on issues of liberty, limited government and a vigorous defense of the Constitution are valuable and needed to help shape the debate. His problem is foreign policy. So much of his performance in the debate the other night was focused on his wildly incoherent isolationist foreign policy. He looked, sounded and acted like a crazy person who should be living in a fortified cabin in the woods somewhere while awaiting the arrival of the mother ship to beam him aboard. He cannot and will not be taken seriously as a presidential candidate with naive and irrational foreign policy views like that.

Michele Bachmann's candidacy has an expiration date: by the end of September. Once Palin is in the race, Bachmann will suffer from the same issue that Cain does. Mama Grizzly will take the lion's share of the tea party base. Many of us like and respect Bachmann and Cain. We just prefer the original tea partier, Sarah Palin. Even before Palin enters the race, Bachmann's national numbers have been on a downward trend since June. As time wears on and it becomes clearer that Palin is getting in the race, Bachmann's base of support continues to shrink. This is not because they are both women. This is because they are both unapologetic fighters for tea party principles.

And to be honest, Pawlenty's attacks on Bachmann have merit. She fights a good fight and says the right things but she has no real legislative accomplishment or executive experience. It's very hard to run on a record of speaking well and having the right ideas. Obama did that in 2008. It's unlikely to be a mistake that the voters make again.

In a battle of Perry, Palin and Romney current polling suggests that Palin would win Iowa. Once she does, some other also-rans who lean to the right will drop out of the race. Maybe even Bachmann herself. That will only benefit Palin heading into New Hampshire and South Carolina. One would expect Romney to win New Hampshire, but then again Palin is polling competitively in blue states like New Jersey without even declaring or campaigning yet, so it can't be ruled out that Palin would outperform expectations there as well.

Then it would come down to a Perry and Palin smack-down in South Carolina. A strengthened Palin and a victory-less Perry will tilt the playing field in Palin's favor. Perry's issue in this race will be his connection with the Bush family and his record as a relatively big-government conservative. That won't play well among a GOP primary field burned by the failures of the Bush administration and the candidacy of John McCain.

It's going to be a spirited and interesting primary and history is bound to be made! Game on!

Saruman McCain's Betrayal of Tea Party Hobbits Quite Telling

2011-07-30T11:44:00.000-04:00

So, did you hear the one about the tea party Hobbits?

Apparently, media adulation-addicted Senator John McCain read from an editorial calling the tea party folks "Hobbits" and then indicated that they have "crackpot thinking" that led to Christine O'Donnell & Sharon Angle as senate nominees. He then claimed that the tea party Hobbits would lead to an Obama re-election victory.

It's funny because Senator O'Donnell and Senator Angle wouldn't have voted for any of this nonsense and would have held the senate to a more fiscally sound approach. That doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.

His decision to use this analogy as a way to shame the tea party into submission is actually quite telling.

First of all, McCain, military man and prisoner of war, demonstrated great character and courage in his life. This is not one of those moments. Had it not been for his Hobbit Queen Sarah Palin's endorsement of him in the Arizona senate primary last year, it is quite likely that Mr. McCain would be one of the vast throngs of the Obama unemployed right now. There were a lot of "hobbits" that supported his candidacy despite very serious misgivings about his political ideology. He now returns the favor by slamming them publicly in order to look cool to his establishment buddies.

As one who has often taught the novel The Hobbit, I can say that the hobbit analogy is very appropriate. The hobbits were betrayed in the Lord of the Rings trilogy by the wizard Saruman. Saruman was an old man who was once a good guy. He was corrupted by power and a love of that power. The kind of corruption that a lifetime in Washington D.C. can do to you. Senator Saruman's betrayal of the grassroots tea party is further proof that term limits might be a good idea and that even good people who spend too much time in the swamps of D.C. become tainted.

It also illustrates the elitist establishment disdain towards tea party folks. We are people that they choose to suck up to in order to gain and retain their political power. Their words are empty of meaning and their feigned political conservatism is merely a vehicle on the road to power. They think little of us and wouldn't hesitate to throw us under the bus in order to preserve their own power.

The bulk of the GOP is about power. They are about being part of the elite circuit and maintaining the status quo. They have no real core convictions. They aren't there to preserve the union, protect the Constitution or advance a common sense conservative agenda. They are there to advance their own careers. It is quickly becoming time for common sense Constitutional conservatives to find a new political home.

The tea party revolution of 2010 helped to restore the party to some extent.

Many of the tea party folks who were elected in 2010 are holding firm. Some, however, have already been corrupted by the ring of D.C. power. Contested primaries are in their future and the extent to which the GOP is damaged beyond repair has been revealed.

In middle earth, only the hobbits are humble enough to carry the evil corrupting ring of power to its destruction. Only the hobbits are able to save the world from the evil power-hungry forces of the ring.

The tea party are the hobbits. They are the only ones that can save America from her socialist demise and the GOP from their political suicide.

We need leaders who understand that. As Rush Limbaugh would say, "We are all Sarah Palin now."

It's no longer time for compromise and retreat. It's time to stand firm and fight.

Angry Lame Duck Carteresque President Claims He's Abraham Lincoln's Twin

2011-07-25T16:36:00.001-04:00

A more appropriate comparison for Obama...

Angry lame duck President Barack Obama sought to augment his legacy of rampant narcissism by claiming that his own handling of the debt ceiling negotiations is similar to how Abraham Lincoln handled the Emancipation proclamation. I kid you not.

So before delving into the content of Obama's comparison, let's review the Narcissist-in-Chief's self-comparisons:

He compared his first 100 days to Democratic icon FDR.

He compared himself to FDR again, along with JFK and Lyndon Johnson on the brilliance of his healthcare reform and accusations that he is a socialist.

He compared himself to Ronald Reagan on nature of his election, and on the new war in Libya.

He proclaimed himself "God's partner" in matters of "life and death" while trying to justify his healthcare reform on religious grounds.

Lincoln, however, is a favorite of his. He compared himself to him in his declaration for the presidency in 2007, in his inauguration itself, and in various subtle and overt ways since both in person and through media sycophants.

The latest misappropriation of history by our failed President ~~Carter~~ Obama occurred at a July 22nd town hall meeting at the University of Maryland. Here are some excerpts:

"I think you should keep on teaching your students to compromise, because that’s not just how government works; that’s how life works...All of us have particular views, a particular vision, in terms of where we think things should go. But we live in societies, we live in communities. And that means we never get our way a hundred percent of the time. That’s what we teach our kids. That’s what we teach our students. That’s how government has to work.

I think it’s fair to say that Abraham Lincoln had convictions. But he constantly was making concessions and compromises. I’ve got the Emancipation Proclamation hanging up in the Oval Office, and if you read that document — for those of you who have not read it — it doesn’t emancipate everybody. It actually declares the slaves who are in areas that have rebelled against the Union are free but it carves out various provinces, various parts of various states, that are still in the Union, you can keep your slaves.

Now, think about that. That’s — “the great emancipator” was making a compromise in the Emancipation Proclamation because he thought it was necessary in terms of advancing the goals of preserving the Union and winning the war. And then, ultimately, after the war was completed, you then had the 13th and 14th and 15th amendments.

So, you know what, if Abraham Lincoln could make some compromises as part of governance, then surely we can make some compromises when it comes to handling our budget."

This latest attempt to Lincoln-ize his lemon of a presidency should be no surprise. Obama has a history of exploiting American media illiteracy on the nation's history to warp key moments into suitable false comparisons that will serve to advance his agenda. In Cairo in 2009, he intentionally misrepresented the late 1700s Treaty of Tripoli as a moment of Muslim contributions to America that was worthy of praise. He later intentionally twisted the Biblical account of the tower of babel to fit his healthcare narrative.

The problem, as with all narcissistic and overly-ambitious historical applications Mr. Obama claims for himself, is that the two situations couldn't be more different.

First, Lincoln always took responsibility. Obama consistently shuns it.

A quick perusal through his correspondence with his generals indicates that Abraham Lincoln always stood ready to take the blame and political fallout for decisions that he made. He would often write to field generals that they could proceed knowing that if their campaign failed, he would shoulder the blame. By contrast, Mr. Obama's very speech at this same event was just the latest example of his shifting blame to his predecessor:

"I do think that in the first year, right after we found out that 4 million people had lost their jobs before I was sworn in, I think that I could have told the American people more clearly how tough this was going to be, how deep and long-lasting this recession was going to be...And remember, in that first year, people weren’t sure whether the banking system was going to melt down, and whether we were going to go into a Great Depression.

On the other hand, I think maybe people’s expectations were that somehow we were going to be able to solve this in a year. And we knew pretty soon after I took office that this was going to last for a while — because, historically, when you have recessions that arise out of financial crises, they last a lot longer than the usual business cycle recessions."

This is anything but Lincoln-esque. And it isn't because Lincoln didn't feel it. Lincoln has been often identified as having an ongoing battle with "melancholy" throughout his presidency and rightly so. He was met with more political and personal tragedy than perhaps any president in our nation's history. Yet, here's Obama claiming to be the responsible adult in the room while he blames the situation on his predecessor and his current failure (or in his mind "perceived" failure") on the irrational expectations of the American people.

Lincoln won office standing firm on the issues of his day. Lincoln's presidency is a picture of personal sacrifice, humility and acceptance of a sobering responsibility. He showed up ready to work on day one.

By contrast, President Obama has spent more time golfing in 30 months than George W. Bush did in 8 years. He's given speech after speech during the debt ceiling debate speaking as though he was just sworn in. Using phrases like "I'm ready to roll up my sleeves" and "get to work" on a situation that he has presided over for going on 3 years attempts to create a some false reality where Obama has no responsibility in this mess and just discovered this fiscal nightmare. This ignores the campaign of 2008 and the first 2 years of using his every political speech as an opportunity to further impugn the reputation of George Bush.

And for someone who holds George Bush singularly to blame for the economic malaise we find ourselves in, Mr. Obama sure hasn't put the brakes on of Bush's policies. He saw George Bush's TARP bailout spending spree and multiplied it tenfold. He saw George Bush's two wars (the most commonly cited reason for the deficit by Obama and his pals despite only being a fraction of domestic discretionary spending--and also being necessary so that we remain alive) and started a third war in Libya with no clear plan or clear explanation as to why it was in the nation's vital national interests. He saw George Bush's expansion of Medicare and created an enormous government usurpation of the healthcare industry (estimated at somewhere between one-fifth and one-sixth of our nation's economy.)

And unlike Lincoln's willingness to boldly engage in the issues of his day, Mr. Obama still isn't sold on the idea of reducing spending and getting our fiscal house in order.

Even on the day of this Lincoln-esque appearance, Dishonest Barry continued to opine on the glories of government spending even as he feigned a passionate devotion to reign in spending by bragging about bailing out the auto industry, initiating his socialized government-paid healthcare, and making massive investments in green energy (AKA the "biggest investment in clean energy in our history.")

He can't be taken seriously as a leader when he claims credit for massive new expenditures and simultaneously claims the mantle of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Obama's implied comparison that his dealing with the debt ceiling crisis is like Lincoln's handling of slavery is absolutely ludicrous. Obama has publicly stated that he wasn't interested in meeting with the GOP until very recently, has stormed out of meetings with the GOP and has reportedly been trying to strike a deal to postpone any real decisions until after the 2012 election to ensure his re-election. He's also talked about "compromise" ad nauseam and defined it as basically the GOP giving in on tax increases and Obama thinking about maybe cutting spending at some point in the future.

This is the same old business-as-usual Democratic approach to fiscal management. The Democratically-controlled congress of the 1980s and early 1990s hoodwinked former Presidents Ronald Reagan & George HW Bush with similar offers where no subsequent cuts in spending materialized. And given that Obama continues to spend vast portions of his speeches on the economy on the virtue of increasing domestic spending, one can only understand the hesitance on the part of the typically linguini-spined GOP in agreeing to an unspecified cut in spending to occur sometime around 2035.

A President who borrows $4.6 billion each and every day to continue sustaining his utopian socialist expansion of the federal government during this economic collapse and ongoing 9.2 unemployment rate (with nearly 1/5 of Americans out of work when underemployment is considered) has no right to be taken seriously when he makes empty promises to cut unspecified spending at some unspecified time.

Mr. Obama, for all of his talk of "plans," has yet to put one into writing. He'd have the American people believe that he's working hard on this crisis while he demonizes each and every GOP plan offered in writing for his review. He's still not offered a plan of his own other than to make vague verbal promises in closed-door meetings. Like the well over 100 times where he voted "Present" in the Illinois state senate rather than taking a stand on an issue, Mr. Obama continually refuses to lead. He prefers the lofty vague platitudes and empty rhetoric to actual action. In that manner, he resembles many of Lincoln's failed union generals more than Lincoln.

In fact, Mr. Obama's abject failure in dealing with the United States economic crisis calls for a more appropriate comparison to another self-important failed one term president. Hearing Mr. Obama's wisdom on the current fiscal crisis is like watching a re-run of the classic Jimmy Carter "malaise" speech:

Somewhere languishing in political exile, Jimmy Carter is smiling.

Mr. Obama's handling of the debt ceiling is similar to Lincoln's handling of the Emancipation Proclamation? Hardly. More like Jimmy Carter's meandering through the malaise.

Hybrid Policy Making Is A Disaster: The Case To Euthanize Compromise

2011-07-20T11:33:00.000-04:00

This morning Dr. Bennett (and his guest Senator Jon Kyl) were making the case for compromise. In their view, "the opponents are bigger than we are and there's more of those guys!"

Dr. Bennett is a well-spoken intellectual with decades of contribution to the conservative agenda. When he speaks, we ought to listen. On this front, however, he is wrong.

Hybrid policy-making is and has always been dangerous folly.

It is dangerous folly because it loses the philosophical debate. It shifts the entire national dialogue leftward in a move akin to a tug-of-war rope competition. As the left pulls the right into the mud-pit center of the playing field everything changes. Suddenly the "right" position becomes more of the moderate position and the "left position" becomes even more Marxist. It contributes to the continual eroding of the conservative agenda.

Hybrid policy making bring about mixed results. Mixed results that the more aggressive Democrats will blame on the "conservative" portions of the compromise over the deafening silence of the passive GOP appeasers. It's Saul Alinsky at his best. The conservative policy then gets targeted, demonized and marginalized and the GOP are left to scatter to the more "sensible" middle.

It is dangerous folly secondly because the Democratic party negotiates in bad faith. The Democratic party seldom delivers on their part of the "compromise" and almost always gets everything that they want through the one-two punch of GOP capitulation and Democratic legislative trickery. We don't need to pass things to see what's in them. History teaches us that the secret ingredient is always hidden leftist poison.

Additionally, there is a seismic shift going on in American political life that changes the game entirely.
The time for political compromise is over. The empire is burning, the Titanic is sinking and the first shots of the revolution have been fired. There is no turning back.

The good folks who were elected in 2010 ran on a platform of political fortitude--period. They did not run on the joys of bending over in surrender. This is nothing new, of course. The GOP has made a living out of feigning some sort of Rocky-esque political can-do stick-with-it-ness in the campaign and then cutting and running once elected. This time, however, the American people thought they were different. The birth of the tea party movement and the entrance into politics of many political neophytes fed up with business as usual gave voters the motivation to win one more for the GOP Gipper.

Many common sense conservatives have been ready to breakup with the GOP. After decades of being paid wooing campaign lip service and then being savagely beaten down in policy-making, we've had enough. This was evident in 2008. Many of us didn't even really want to vote for John McCain, the poster-child of political compromise and capitulation. Then he nominated Sarah Palin for Vice President in a rare moment of political courage that changed national politics for generations. So when the 2010 mid-term elections came, we gave the GOP one more shot at governance.

If the GOP follows the footsteps of their predecessors there will be a very real and permanent break with the tea party folks.

Historically, the GOP is masterful at capitulating politically, legislatively and philosophically. This is what comes of allowing the herd of RINOs mulling around the fringe of the party to become the reigning RINOcracy. The RINOcracy has gradually frayed the edges of the GOP banner and slowly dulled the bold colors of the Reagan revolution into the very pale pastels that he fought against his entire political life.

In my lifetime, the GOP policy of "compromise" has always continued the ball down the road toward socialism if even just a few inches more. It has also always had the rather unsavory effect of politically neutering the GOP in the next wave of elections. And yet, the reigning GOP establishment continues to argue that unless we compromise we will lose the 2012 elections.

In the 1980s Ronald Reagan was forced to compromise on some issues and stood firm on others. On the issues where he stood firm, Reagan continues to get high marks for his brilliant success. He refused to cave on his foreign policy that sought to bring down the "evil empire" of the USSR and bring the decades long Cold War to a successful conclusion. He stood by his principles and took politically unpopular positions. He didn't allow the media to define him or shake his resolve. And history proved him right.

Reagan took the same stance on tax cuts. Presiding over the largest peacetime economic expansion proved him right again.

On the issues of illegal immigration and spending cuts (and even some late-term tax increases) he capitulated. The legacy in these areas has been devastating. On the issue of illegal immigration, Mr. Reagan granted amnesty in 1986 under the premise that the Democrats would then agree to tighter security measures and crack down on the illegal immigration menace. Democrats refused to follow through. As a result, Reagan capitulated on amnesty and got nothing that he bargained for. This "hybrid" policy of amnesty in 1986 lost the debate and gave cover to generations of RINO leaders to claim the Reagan mantle while advocating amnesty. It took the footing out from underneath the common sense conservative argument for tougher border security and better enforcement of immigration laws. Suddenly most GOP lawmakers enter the debate with an amnesty provision being a given, rather than a last resort bargaining chip.

Reagan's compromise on government spending with the Democrats paved the way for the tax increase of 1990. It worked temporarily because Reagan got the tax cuts that he needed and his bold, principled leadership on the issue ensured that the debate would continue. Once Reagan left the national stage, however, and handed the reigns over to the lesser-resolved George H.W. Bush, the debate was lost.

Reagan's inability to get the Democrats to cut spending caused a surge of political capital on the Democratic side of the aisle with which to demonize conservative economic policy. It was Reagan's tax cuts, they argued, that caused the deficit. Trapped in the surging tide of unrest over the growing deficit, Bush continued to cede ground to the left by agreeing to raise taxes if the Democrats would just cut some spending instead of boldly defending the case for lower taxes the way President Reagan did. Taxes were then raised, the case for lower taxes undermined, and the spending spree continued.

Bitterly clinging to the idol of compromise has led the GOP to national defeat over and over again. George H. W. Bush lost re-election in 1992. Bob Dole lost in 1996. George W. Bush may have won re-election in 2004 but that was because of his bold resolve on the War on Terror and not because of his inability to confront the Democrats on spending. In 2006 the GOP lost control of the legislative branch for exactly that reason. The Republicans lost the 2008 election partly because Barack Obama was an unstoppable political juggernaut, partly because John McCain was a weak compromiser, and partly because of Bush's failure in forcefully dealing with out-of-control spending. FACT: The only time that the McCain-Palin ticket led the Obama-Biden ticket was immediately after the introduction of the feisty fighting Palin and before McCain's muddled capitulation on bailouts.

Continuing down the path of compromise ensures that the Republicans will lose the 2012 elections, the national debate on any number of political issues and their future relevancy as a political party. America responds to bold leadership not weak surrender.

Instead of infighting, forming gangs of 6, and giving away the farm to the Democrats, the Republicans should be driving the debate. President Obama is the one pushing horror-film narratives about the carnage that will result if a deal isn't reached. He's also the one refusing to sign any deal that cuts spending without massive tax increases. Shouldn't he be outed for that far-left lunacy?

The GOP has the power to shift the paradigm. This debate isn't about what the GOP is willing to give up on. The debate is whether it is wise to raise taxes in the Obama economic depression on those few folks who have the capacity to hire people. And if it isn't wise, why would the president have this catastrophic policy as his sticking point? His reply will be to blame Bush. But on every level Mr. Obama has taken the Bush economic policy of bailouts and record spending and taken it to staggering new heights. The GOP needs to make that case. How can Bush be solely to blame when the Obama policy has been to accelerate the Bush policies with the added ingredient of healthy doses of vacations and golf.

This is not a fight that Mitch McConnell can win. Ditto John McCain. Ditto Mitt Romney. Ditto Jon Huntsman. Ditto Tim Pawlenty. This calls for another Reagan-esque common sense conservative unashamed to take the fight to the Democrats and call them on their nefarious wheeling and dealing. This is a fight that requires an affinity for tea. This is a fight that needs to be fought with the force of a Mama Grizzly.

As Margaret Thatcher once quipped when pressed to capitulate to the left, "the lady is not for turning." Great victories are won by standing firm. It's time for the GOP to stiffen their spine and stand up for America before it is too late.

I know a former mayor of Wasilla who could give them some pointers.

GOP 2012: My Take On The Field July 2011

2011-07-18T20:02:00.002-04:00

Let it be said that at this point in the 2008 presidential election cycle everyone--EVERYONE--was convinced that we would be holding a Rudy Giuliani & Hillary Clinton smack down in November of 2008. Neither one of them ended up being their party's nominee.

In fact, Obama at this point was an up-and-coming Democratic senator who had been in office for about 30 seconds (Okay 2 years, but it ended up being 30 seconds when you subtract out all of the legislative obligations he skipped to be running for president.) People expected big things from the radical former community organizer just not yet. Nobody could stand in the way of the Clinton machine. And Hillary? She'd been the darling of the Democratic party ever since her star turn as Bill Clinton's ~~doormat~~ wife.

Rudy was the star of 9/11. His steady leadership in a moment of national crisis seemed enough to power through the problems with his social positions. Meanwhile, McCain was out of cash and on the ropes. Nobody even thought he had enough support or cash left to make it to South Carolina.

Oh what a difference a few months can make.

So, it is with that political history grain-of-salt that I will be offering my thoughts on the field so far.

To start off, Barack Obama is insanely beatable. He is Jimmy Carter 2.0. Unemployment is high, the economy is in the tank and his leadership has been terrible on a whole plethora of issues. In 2008 he could hide behind the smoke-and-mirrors of the TelePrompter. In 2012 he will have to answer for his failures (and they are legion.)

That said, if the Republican party nominates a RINO (Republican in name only) they will lose hold of the tea party and forfeit this election. It's possible that a RINO could even beat Obama, but unlikely. We'll do this analysis in a suspenseful manner. I'll tackle the real nominee as I see him or her last.

ABOUT THOSE SUPPORTING CAST CANDIDATES...

The following folks have exactly zero chance of getting elected in 2012 and are thus somewhat irrelevant:

Rick Santorum is a nice guy and was a decent senator. He is irrelevant as a presidential candidate. The only question is whether he will still be around by the time Iowa's caucus takes place. He certainly won't be afterwards.

Newt Gingrich is embarrassing himself. He is already in massive campaign debt, most of his staff has quit, and the only media attention he's garnered this cycle has been for moments when he trashed conservatives in a McCainian move designed to generate fawning media coverage. His elected political career ended in the 1990s. He's apparently the only one who doesn't know that.

Ron Paul has really grown on me. His domestic policies are pretty solid. When it comes to foreign policy, however, he is a disaster. That and the fact that he will be 77 years old tells me that Paul 2012 will be like Paul 2008--full of sound and fury but accomplishing nothing in terms of electoral victories. I wouldn't say he is completely irrelevant. His libertarian arguments will bring a lot to the debate and will help push some of the RINOcracy to the right a bit. And for that, we thank him.

There is also apparently someone named "Buddy" running for office and some pot-smoking dude named Johnson. Um, no. On both folks.

CONCERNING RINOS...

What we've seen in Obama's brief history of political life is that he will not be bested by a RINO. If the GOP nominates anyone from this herd, they will almost certainly lose. For that reason, the GOP will NOT nominate a member of the RINOcracy in 2012.

The clown prince of the RINOs has to be Mitt Romney. The businessman who ran AND governed Massachusetts as a liberal Republican has switched over every policy position to the conservative side. The problem is that his record suggests a proclivity toward the liberal side. His actions don't match his current words. They do, however, match his old words. Romney as a nominee would be outrageously vulnerable on the socialized medicine front. One of the main arguments against Bill Ayers' pal in 2012 will be Obamacare. The problem is that Romney loves socialized medicine. He loves and is on record praising government mandates. His own Romneycare is the fore-runner to Obamacare. The only difference between Romney and Obama regarding America's death march toward socialized medicine is the speed with which they will get there. For that reason Mitt Romney cannot win the GOP primary and will be DOA as a general election candidate. Nominating Romney would be political suicide for the GOP. In the short term because they will lose 2012 in much the same way that 2008's McCain did. In the long term, nominating Romney will create a vast and permanent break with the tea party that will lead to the rise of a third party and the GOP's political demise. If the GOP establishment can find someone--anyone--to fill their Romney status-quo slow-drip socialism approach, Romney is unlikely to survive.

Jon Huntsman is the latest Barbour/Daniels/Thune for the RINOcracy. They create false media memes suggesting that vast throngs of voters are clamoring for what he's serving up. They fawn over the imagery of announcing in front of Lady Liberty as though it somehow means that Ronald Reagan rose from the grave and endorsed him simply because he chose the same announcement spot. And yet, the former Obama Ambassador to China can't break single digits. Maybe it's that he's in the wrong party based on his political ideology. Maybe it's the fact that he actually served in the Obama administration until very recently. Whatever the reason, voters aren't buying what he's selling. But can he buy them? Look for the RINOcracy to continue to prop up Huntsman as Romney becomes increasingly irrelevant and hapless. Short of the rapture claiming the vast majority of the tea party, Huntsman will also not be the GOP nominee. In the bizarre event that he somehow made it to the general election, he would fare slightly better than Romney, but would also perform similarly to McCain's 2008 results.

Tim Pawlenty sounds super conservative these days but folks familiar with his record as Minnesota's governor know better. Pawlenty is indeed far more desirable as a candidate than Romney or Huntsman. He is a second tier member of the RINOcracy because he is just a tad to the right of mainstream RINOs and Harry Reid. Currently languishing in single digits, Mr. Pawlenty has yet to demonstrate that he has a pulse. A dullard like Pawlenty, however good-natured, stands no chance against the slick media darling celebrity of Obama. He has no chance to win the nomination, but he would perform the best of the RINOcracy in the general election. So, maybe we'd win back North Carolina. Goody.

Chris Christie is not a conservative. I'm from NJ. I know. He's an abrasive bully who stands up to unions. That's as far as it goes. He would not fare well as a presidential candidate. He won't run this time.

Rudy Giuliani is not running. He's thinking about it. He's ultimately going to sit it out. If he did, he wouldn't fare much better than 2008.

THE REAL DEAL...CONSERVATIVES, TEA PARTY FOLKS & THE PATH TO VICTORY

Michele Bachmann is a true conservative. Many of her detractors claim she's an establishment tool used to thwart the tea party and ensure victory for a member of the RINOcracy. Maybe. I sure hope not. The fact is that she is a legislator. She's done a lot to publicly advance the cause of the tea party, but she has no real executive experience and barely any legislative accomplishments to boast of. She's also now entering the Palinization phase of her political career. She will not have sufficient time to recover. She will be savagely destroyed in the next 6 months by the media. A new report questions her health regarding stress-induced migraines and pill-popping which is sure to plummet her standing. Also likely to send her numbers south is the entrance of Sarah Palin. Bachmann's lofty poll position currently is only due to the fact that many pollsters are leaving Palin out. Once Palin gets in, Bachmann will return to single digits. She's made quite a few major mis-steps out of the gate and that doesn't bode well. Bachmann for president isn't such a good idea. Bachmann for senate sounds a lot more appropriate. Bachmann will not be the nominee although she would fare better in a general election than any of the RINOcracy. I don't buy into the idea that her candidacy is a betrayal of Sarah Palin any more than I buy into the idea that there's only room for one woman in the field. Some of her actions, however, particularly involving Mr. Rollins have been very disappointing when it comes to Palin. They reveal a troubling question about her choices and character and will cost her dearly with the tea party set.

Rick Perry will also not be backstabbing Sarah Palin if he runs for president. I believe he sincerely believes that he can bridge the gap between the tea party set and the establishment. He does resonate to some extent with both spheres of influence. As a result, his candidacy could be formidable as he would draw supporters from folks like Bachmann and Cain as well as Romney and Huntsman. If the establishment RINOcracy wants to play nice with the tea party, they will adopt him as their heir. That combined establishment and tea party support could deliver the nomination to him. That said, he's a little too cozy with the establishment and a little too moderate for this political climate. He also talks, walks and acts like George Bush. If Palin doesn't get in, he's the nominee. He would almost certainly beat Obama in a general election based on jobs and economic concerns alone. There is still the chance that he's pulling a head-fake on the media and will stay on the sidelines endorsing his fellow governor Sarah Palin. We'll see.

Herman Cain is fun, refreshing and dynamic. He represents a break with the RINOcracy and the political establishment. His candidacy will contribute well to the GOP win, lose, or draw. He resonates with the tea party like nobody else other than Palin and Bachmann. Should Palin stay out, Cain will benefit tremendously. That said, he doesn't seem to have the traction yet that he needs to stay viable. It's unlikely that he will be the GOP nominee barring Palin sitting out. He would give Obama a run for his money, and my money says he would win a general election.

Sarah Palin is running and will win the GOP nomination for president in 2012. If she was sitting out, she would have made that clear long ago. Expect an announcement by Labor Day. She demonstrates the heart, the passion and the refreshing honesty that voters are looking for. She has political courage that is unparalleled among her peers. She alone will take the fight to Obama in ways that the other candidates can't even fathom. Her grit and authentic optimism will triumph. Her entire story has been one of overcoming the odds to defy prevailing political wisdom and take on those in power. The Undefeated documentary and the release of her emails have begun to change the narrative. The media is beginning to take Mrs. Palin seriously as are the voters. Her favorable ratings and electability numbers have been steadily increasing. She will win the GOP nomination. She will crush Obama in the general election. History is repeating itself and this is shaping up to be Reagan-Carter all over again. Palin is just the candidate to take that fight.

So the only question is...who's going to be her VP selection?

Obama Would Rather Be Talking About NFL Season & "New Programs" Than Debt

2011-07-11T14:42:00.000-04:00

Barack Hussein Obama (Mmm Mmm Mmm) continues to be a stellar example of leadership.

He who has governed for 2.5 years before realizing that it fell under his sphere of responsibility to actually balance the budget and stop runaway spending instead of irresponsibly increasing it at a rate that bests any previous president in the history of our nation, recently proclaimed that he was ready to "roll up his sleeves" and get to work on on our nation's debt. It is a problem that he has at best ignored and at worst exacerbated in "historic" and "unprecedented" depression-seeking fiscal policies that "few would have foreseen." He also said we need to "eat our peas" regarding the debt in a move designed to force wobbly-kneed GOP leadership into raising taxes during the newly dubbed "Obama depression."

Indeed the GOP leadership, apparently unschooled in political history, was on the verge of agreeing to some tax increases for some paltry spending cuts until our president in exile, Sarah Palin, posted a Facebook note about it. Suddenly, they are holding firm, if even just for a moment longer.

They apparently missed the lesson of the 1990 tax increase agreed to by well-meaning President George HW "Read my lips--no new taxes" Bush. It too promised spending cuts by the Democrat-led Congress. Spending cuts that never quite materialized. In the end, they kept up spending rates, got the increase in taxes fix that the spending-addicted Democrats needed, and managed to politically assassinate Bush for the 1992 election. His breaking with Reagan fiscal policies alienated enough of his political base to make it possible for Bill Clinton to take the White House after 12 years of GOP governance.

The GOP, in agreeing to any debt deal involving tax increases will suffer the same fate. History does repeat itself.

Today's stunner from the Harvard-educated picture of brilliance takes the cake. The brilliant Harvard graduate who never published a single paper while serving as editor of the Harvard Law Review and who has had his academic records under stricter lock and key than his national security intel, previously revealed the existence of 57 or 58 states in the United States union to the shock of many. He also informed the world community of the existence of an Austrian language and praised the Muslim community for their selfless recognition of early America in the Treaty of Tripoli (a treaty blackmailing the Adams administration so that Muslim pirates would leave us alone.) And let's not forget his willingness to pander to the key Democratic voting bloc of the undead with his multiple illustrations to the world that the term "Navy corpsman" is pronounced "Corpse-man." He also disgracefully educated the world that the Commander-In-Chief could communicate with the dead when he recounted meeting a military hero to give him a medal when he had actually awarded the medal to his parents after his death.

Today, the leader of the free world openly opined about how annoyed he was to have to deal with this issue of debt reduction. Darn, this presidenting thing is hard! He'd much rather be talking about new spending sprees in his quest to fundamentally transform America. And the NFL season starting on time. Seriously.

It's such a comfort that the President of the United States values football above a crumbling national economy and the biggest economic crisis since the 1930s.

As president in exile Sarah Palin pointed out, she didn't attend Harvard, but she can add.

Perhaps simple mathematics was not one of the courses that the intellectually gifted community organizer chose to enroll himself in. There were, after all Marxist professors to hobnob with as per his memoir.

A link for the video is found here. Enjoy watching this spectacular example of leadership.

2.5 Years Later: Obama Ready To Roll Up His Sleeves (And Presumably Pause His Golf-a-thon)

2011-07-08T20:48:00.000-04:00

After a 30 months of golf, Obama decides to engage

President Obama never ceases to amaze. Today, after a dismal economic report indicated that unemployment has risen officially to 9.2% (much higher if you count the poor unfortunate souls who have simply given up looking) Mr. Obama pledged that he was "ready to roll up his sleeves" and get to work on the economy that he's presided over for 2.5 years.

His complete lack of focus, interest or engagement over the looming debt battle, the runaway government spending, the disastrous economic performance or the near depression level unemployment rate has been quite stellar. Most presidents at least bite their bottom lip, stick out a thumb and tell us that they feel our pain.

Not Barack Hussein Obama (Mmm Mmm Mmm). No sir. He's focused on golf, on international trips, on sending guns to Mexican drug cartels, on subsidizing other countries and their energy production, and on recognizing crazed Islamic Jihadist governments.

Regarding the economy, he has gotten exactly what he wanted when he set out to win this job. Albeit a little heavy on the change and not so strong on the hope.

He promised that utility prices would "necessarily skyrocket" in a move to make us more green. Pain in the pocket was worth it, so long as Al Gore was appeased. And the precious unicorns of the green movement are safe from the ~~global warming~~ ~~global cooling~~ global warming/cooling that is occurring.

He openly boasted of associating with Marxists in college in one of his ghostwritten biographies thanks to the well-thought out prose of terrorist William Ayers. And as President, he's appointed several current or former Marxists as imaginary Czars who have gobs of power but little to no accountability.

He even hugged Marxist poster boy Hugo Chavez and laughed off a gaggle of Central and South American Commies trashing America at an international conference, so long as they "don't blame" him for things that happened in many cases before he was even born. What a spirited defense of American Exceptionalism. Thomas Paine would be proud.

During the campaign the Marxist-in-Chief openly opined that he thinks it is better when you "spread the wealth around" and has pursued economic policies designed to destroy free market capitalism and give more control to the federal government through individual mandates, bailouts with tentacles attached, and outright government usurpation of vast portions of the private sector.

All of this is designed to redistribute wealth and "fundamentally change" America from a free market capitalist society to a socialist society in the model of the plethora of failed European socialist experiments.

Indeed, as Obama's policies continue to intentionally slow economic growth at the behest of his big government ideology, the president seems to be pursuing socialism as defined by Margaret Thatcher in her final appearance before Parliament. Pressed by a lunatic leftist espousing the glories of socialism and attacking Thatcher's pro-growth economic policies, the Iron Lady made a pithy definition of socialism that would make Sarah Palin's Facebook page smile. She insisted that the socialists actually wanted the poor to be poorer provided that the rich were less rich.

In other words, they pursue policies to reduce wealth across the board and they are happy as pigs in slop about it, so long as the gap between the rich and the poor gets smaller.

Free market conservatives like Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and say, Sarah Palin, would prefer that wealth is increased across the board. Are the poor really worse off if the gap between the poorest Americans and the richest Americans gets bigger if at the same time the poor see their level of income dramatic increase?

That seems to be the emotionally-soaked logic that guides Barack Obama's fiscal policies. He's really not interested in growing the economy too much, because private sector growth would cause the rich to get richer. Mr. Obama finds this as offensive as most Americans find terrorism. Obama would rather shoot America's economy in the foot so long as the evil rich folks get hurt the most. Sure, poor folks will also find jobs scarce and end up dependent on government social programs, but as long as the rich folks are punished for the evils of capitalist success, then Mr. Obama will feel that he has done his job.

So as we approach the 2012 election, Americans should be asking themselves if a misguided hatred against rich people should really be the primary focus of American economic policies. Because Mr. Obama loves him some class warfare and is prepared to bring the entire American economy to the brink in order to spread the poverty around. His policies are dangerous and destructive and are bringing America to a crossroads. Without a drastic change in direction (no RINOs like Romney or Huntsman will cut it) America will careen down the same failed socialist economic cliff that most of Europe has already fallen down. Americans, the richest, the poorest and everyone in between will be in a far worse financial situation and the standard of living in America will drop significantly. As a side bonus, Obama's government will have greater influence and control over the masses as it becomes the primary breadwinner in most American homes.

And as it all happens, Mr. Obama will be smiling like a Cheshire Cat. For he will finally have achieved the fundamental transformation of leveling the playing field by spreading mediocre earnings and abject poverty across the board.

NJ for Palin: Margaret Thatcher: England's Sarah Palin

2011-07-07T17:03:00.000-04:00

NJ for Palin: Margaret Thatcher: England's Sarah Palin: "The above clip is from 1975. It begins with Lady Thatcher using a feather duster to do a little spring cleaning and wipe away socialism. ..."

FLASHBACK: Obama Engages in Roundtable with Founding Fathers

2011-07-04T14:30:00.000-04:00

This fun little post was originally written for my old Examiner column. Enjoy.

The following is a vigorous debate from a roundtable discussion between the founding fathers and Obama and his pals:

THOMAS JEFFERSON: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

BARACK OBAMA: "One of the great strengths of the United States is...we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation..."

THOMAS JEFFERSON: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

BARACK OBAMA: "Can't I just eat my waffle?"

GEORGE WASHINGTON: "Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens."

BARACK OBAMA: "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them. I will stand with the Muslims if the political winds should shift in an ugly direction."

THOMAS JEFFERSON: "The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light this country and all who serve it, and the glow from that fire can truly light this world."

BARACK OBAMA: "In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. "

OBAMA PAL BILL AYERS: "America still makes me want to puke."

GEORGE WASHINGTON: "No country upon earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings than United America. Wondrously strange, then, and much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to neglect the means and to depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass."

JOHN ADAMS: "I Pray Heaven to Bestow The Best of Blessing on THIS HOUSE, and on ALL that shall hereafter Inhabit it."

REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT: "Nah, nah, nah, not God bless America...God damn America!"

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: "It is a rising and not setting sun."

MICHELLE OBAMA: "America is just downright mean and guided by fear. This is the first time in my adult life that I am proud of America."

THOMAS JEFFERSON: "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned--this is the sum of good government."

BARACK OBAMA: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

THOMAS JEFFERSON: "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

BARACK OBAMA: "Everyone needs a little skin in the game."

JOHN ADAMS: "Human nature itself is evermore an advocate for liberty. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."

REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT: "America's chickens are coming home to roost!"

GEORGE WASHINGTON: "An innate spirit of freedom first told me that the measures which the Administration hath for sometime been, and now are, most violently pursuing are repugnant..."

BARACK OBAMA: "Well, the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed."

THOMAS JEFFERSON: "Delay is preferable to error. All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

BARACK OBAMA: "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them...to explain their frustrations."

THOMAS JEFFERSON: "For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security."

WASHINGTON: "It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism...let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."

BARACK OBAMA: "What Washington needs is adult supervision."

THOMAS JEFFERSON: "It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle of which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."

JOE BIDEN: "We have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt!"

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: "A penny saved is a penny earned."

BARACK OBAMA: "I won't stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out."

THOMAS JEFFERSON: "Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence."

BARACK OBAMA: "It's a lie, plain and simple."

THOMAS JEFFERSON: "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories."

BARACK OBAMA: "There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false."

JOE WILSON: "You lie!"

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: "If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freeman we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

BARACK OBAMA: "We're not going to babysit a Civil War. I cannot swallow whole the idea of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator. We are the ones we've been waiting for. Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing...More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick...and more will die as a result."

PATRICK HENRY: "Give me liberty or give me death."

FOUNDERS: "We mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor!"

City on a Hill Political Observer: Founding Father Caesar Rodney: Who He Was and Why ...

2011-07-04T14:18:00.000-04:00

FLASHBACK: City on a Hill Political Observer: Founding Father Caesar Rodney: Who He Was and Why ...: "America’s ruling class in 2010 bears a closer resemblance to the oppressive British rule which she broke free from during her founding th..."

Hilarious Mitt Romney Who Are You Video

2011-06-28T20:33:00.000-04:00

Stumbled across an stupendously hilarious Mitt Romney mash-up of policy statements from the conservative/moderate/liberal Romney's various campaign appearances. And he wonders why people think he isn't sincere! Here's opportunist flip-flopping RINO superstar Mitt Romney in his own words:

It has to be my favorite Mitt Romney YouTube video since this one:

The GOP primary contenders are going to shred this guy. It's RINO hunting season and Governor Palin's getting geared up!

Barack Obama Tone Deaf on Economy

2011-06-23T13:34:00.000-04:00

Obama: Hard at work or hardly working?

When Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992, we were told that it was the "economy, stupid" that helped elect him (that and the unstable loon Ross Perot who syphoned off enough votes from George HW Bush to hand the presidency to the randy Rhodes Scholar from Hope.)

It just might be the undoing of the Obama myth.

Obama, he who we've been waiting for, seems completely tone deaf on the issue of the economy. This absolutely abysmal economic policy leads sane observers to come to one of two possible sobering conclusions regarding the Obama presidency: either he's completely incompetent or he's willingly sabotaging any hope of economic recovery in hopes of fundamentally transforming this nation into the socialist utopia that he's always envisioned it to be.

If Mr. Obama is serious about fixing the economy, he has achieved a level of incompetence not matched in 43 previous presidents. His policies have had a disastrous effect on the economy. The Obama administration has pursued a cornucopia of economic policies that create a hostile environment for job creation and economic expansion save for the rapid growth of government jobs. Everything that he's done has been designed to make it as difficult as possible for private industry to succeed. From the disastrous inflation-inducing quantitative easing that the federal reserve under Obama's direction has pursued to the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, to government bailouts and unrestrained government debt with absolutely no plan to reign in spending even one iota, Mr. Obama's economic policies are at best, designed with a complete lack of understanding or regard for the private sector, or at worst, nefariously crafted in order to intentionally destroy the free market in order to make the American electorate completely dependent on the government for their very way of life.

And it's not just the policies that are horrific. While Americans are experiencing an unemployment rate not seen since the great depression, with an official unemployment rate of 9.1% and the more accurate underemployment rate at 19.1% (underemployment includes those who have given up looking for a new job, something that the official rate does not account for) Mr. Obama has marked his presidency as the famous conservative Twitter personality ExJon as the "leisure president."

In economic hard times, the Obama family has continued a rigorous family vacation schedule unmatched by any of his predecessors. And no previous occupant of the White House has enjoyed the golf greens as much as Barack Hussein Obama. This past week, Obama played his 74th round of golf in just 2 and a half years of office. Keep in mind that golf, like Monopoly, typically usurps an entire day from one's schedule.

The Obama family vacations are famous for the huge entourages and spending sprees that the First Lady participates in.

Then there's the weekly parties at the White House, the imported steaks and lavish spending.

It all points to a president who either doesn't care about the economic plight of his people or is just so self-absorbed that he doesn't notice it.

It's astounding that not a single advisor has been able to convince the president that the non-stop partying and vacationing lifestyle might need to be put on hold in order to look presidential and assure the American people that he is not only engaged but concerned about their plight.

Instead, any serious attempt offered by the GOP (who by the way are the only ones offering up plans that don't involve completely ignoring our debt problem and radically increasing government spending anyway) is demonized by this White House as trying to kill special needs children and seniors.

Ironic, given the inevitable rationing that Obamacare will enforce on the most vulnerable among us. Death panels, anyone?

President Obama's approach completely ignores the economic collapse of socialist economies such as Greece and most of Europe and continues full speed down the well-worn socialist path toward fiscal insolvency and economic collapse.

So insensitive to the economic woe his disastrous administration has, at best, prolonged, and more likely, worsened, is Obama that he now finds the rampant unemployment something to joke about.

Just recently, Obama chuckled and guffawed over how funny it was that his "shovel-ready jobs" that scrappy Joe Biden promised never materialized. In his compassionate assessment of his economic failure, the president joked, "Shovel ready was not as, uh, shovel-ready as we expected."

It was the "Recovery Summer of 2010" that wasn't.

Since then, Mr. Obama has naively proposed high-speed trains and green energy as the way to kick start the economy while continuing to cut off gas production domestically and subsidizing other countries to do the dirty work. While presiding over rampant unemployment, Mr. Obama's gaggle of socialist czars have continued to pursue his stated purpose of making energy costs "necessarily sky-rocket" in a move that increases the monthly bills for already struggling American families.

As the economy continues to tank, Obama's recent speeches have the tone of someone who just walked into the Oval Office. It's a breath-taking display of blame shifting that is beneath the presidency. Whatever impact George W. Bush's policies had on the current economic environment, he has been out of office for over 2 years. As Debbie Wasserman-Schultz proudly announced on national television, this economy (which she boasted had rebounded) belongs to the Democratic governing majority and their anointed one Barack Obama. And remember, she has a cute smile according to the president.

And yet Mr. Obama continues to speak in platitudes about what we need to do, what we are going to do and never gets around to the actual doing despite being ~~on the golf course~~ in office for two and a half years. His refusal to lead on the economy and his failed record of economic recovery will doom his re-election chances. Obama's career has been largely based on image over substance. As the substance and image converge for this incumbent, it will be harder and harder for the former community organizer to sell his platitude-laden empty rhetoric as his actions/inactions begin to drown out his successful dramatic readings.

Americans can only hope that our country can hang on until Mr. Obama joins the ranks of the unemployed. (Assuming that the GOP nominates an actual bold reforming conservative willing to take on the establishment in lieu of media-approved RINOs like Romney and Huntsman.)

On the economy as on so many other issues of the day, 2012 can't come soon enough.

NJ For Sarah Palin: Bachmann Scorched Earth Rollinsian Palin Strategy ...

2011-06-07T18:20:00.000-04:00

NJ For Sarah Palin: Bachmann Scorched Earth Rollinsian Palin Strategy ...: "Let me be clear: I like Michele Bachmann. I'd love for her to replace George Hamilton John 'Tears' Boehner as Speaker of the House to char..."

RINOs Stampede Interrupted By Palin Bus Tour

2011-05-28T15:05:00.000-04:00

So, to review recent events:

Sarah Palin bought a house in Arizona.

Sarah Palin commissioned a million-dollar documentary to be produced about her tenure as governor that will premiere in Iowa and then expand to South Carolina, New Hampshire and Nevada before expanding around the country.

Sarah Palin will be going on a "One Nation Under God" bus tour of the country for the next few weeks starting in D.C. and first tackling the northeast before heading around the nation.

Sarah Palin stated that she has "the fire in the belly" for a presidential run to Greta on Fox News.

Sarah Palin repeatedly tells us that "November 2012 can't come soon enough."

Sarah Palin ended her speech in Madison by uttering the now famous twitter hashtag of "Mr. President, Game on!"

Sarah Palin hired a new foreign policy advisor, made a major foreign policy address and re-hired people responsible for arranging her travel and appearances.

And yet the media and RINO royalty of the GOP continue to tell us that she's not running because she hasn't yet greased their palms.

They've been on quite a losing streak as of late, however, so perhaps some pity is due. First, they assured us that even if Palin got in, she was yesterday's news. Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump would suck up all of her support. Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann would suck up whatever scraps were left over. She was done.

Then Mike Huckabee announced he wasn't running.

Then Donald Trump announced he wasn't running.

Uh Oh! So then the RINO royal family began assuring us that we were all salivating over Haley Barbour, John Thune and especially Mitch Daniels. Mitch Daniels this. Mitch Daniels that. We're all just waiting for him to enter the race. Obama is scared of him. The media is impressed with him. He has gravitas. He's 4 foot 3. He's so brilliant that he was George W. Bush's budget chairman. He's the man to beat. Nobody can touch him. Laura Bush is calling his wife. The Bush family is pushing him into the fray. This despite the fact that nobody outside of the Hoosier state or the Bush family had ever heard of this political small wonder.

And this also in spite of the fact that virtually every public pronouncement from the lips of Daniels had been one of apologizing for conservatism or calling for retreat on major planks of the conservative agenda before the battle even started. A profile in political courage he is not.

Then the unknown rockstar, Sir Mitch Daniels, decided to remain in Indiana. Sadly for RINOs, this was after Barbour and Thune had also announced that they weren't getting in.

Now RINOs are left with the strategy of marginalizing Palin a la the media narrative that she's stupid and unqualified and pitting her against Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain, hoping to divide and conquer the very constituency that they owe whatever power they have in Washington to.

To be fair, that's probably the only shot the RINO royalty has left.

Their hopefuls aren't doing so well. Newt Gingrich stepped right out of 1994 and into the primary to campaign as someone slightly to the right of Nancy Pelosi but to the left of the mainstream Democratic party. He attacked Paul Ryan's budget as "right wing social engineering" and then claimed that he didn't mean what he said. His candidacy is flatlining before even the August Iowa straw poll.

Their boy Mitt, who never met a policy position he didn't delight in flip-flopping on, decided that the one issue he wouldn't flip on was the glory of socialized medicine. Romneycare (also known as Obamacare's kid brother) has been a fiscal nightmare and has resulted in worsening healthcare conditions in the Peoples' Republic of Massachusetts and yet Mitt still beams with pride over it.

So calculating and condescending is Romney, that he thinks voters will fall for his spirited defense of his own individual mandate and governmental usurpation of the healthcare industry if he simultaneously attacks Obama for doing the exact same thing. Breathtakingly, Romney was able to both praise his own individual mandate-laden healthcare debacle while attacking Obama's.

And he wonders why grassroots folks don't trust him!

And then there's Tim Pawlenty. He talks a good game and seems like a nice guy. He's by far the best of the RINO farm team, but he lacks a certain...pulse. His record as governor (of which I am admittedly not an expert) was spotty at best. He governed as a moderate that only began drifting more to the right as the bright lights of 2012 drew closer. He also comes off as a little bit of a Jan Brady-type these days commenting that people shouldn't be "worried about a bus tour" while commending himself ad nauseam about a pithy tweet he authored regarding Obama's european pub crawl.

Sarah Palin's One Nation tour coupled with the release of "The Undefeated" documentary indicates that she is going to run for president. It also demonstrates the amount of attention she can get and just how politically savvy she is. Palin's candidacy is no largely only a matter of "when" not "if."

As it stands today, most polling shows Palin nearly tied with Romney for the lead. While it is early to speculate, it does appear that the 2012 GOP primary will become a RINO vs. tea party smack-down. Palin will vie with Paul, Bachmann (if she runs) and Cain for the tea party vote, while Romney will duke it out with Gingrich and Pawlenty for the RINO love. Santorum won't really be much of a factor either way.

In that scenario, the race will quickly settle into a race between the titular heads of each faction, which is likely to be a Romney and Palin showdown. And that is a race that Palin can win decisively.

So as Palin's bus tour hits sites of importance in the exceptional history of America, look for her numbers and "electability" question to dramatically improve. Her invitation to "join the fundamental restoration of America" is one that will resound with the American people. Her outsider, non-politician, non-status quo identity when properly seen through retail politicking, dynamic commercials and the documentary covering her true decades long political history of success in defying the corrupt establishment of both parties will resound powerfully with the American electorate.

Make no mistake, the Palin bus tour is about to turn the RINO stampede and their donkey counterparts into roadkill. Game on indeed!

My Take on 2012 Field Thus Far

2011-05-13T16:31:00.000-04:00

The political Davids to take on the Obama Goliath in 2012 are beginning to pick up the sling shots and the field is taking shape. Haley Barbour is out. Ron Paul & Newt Gingrich are in. Indications are that Mike Huckabee will also be out by Saturday night and that Donald Trump's cancellation of a no-holds-barred RedState interview indicates that he has also decided to pass on the race. Where does that leave us? Here's my take on the good, the bad, and the ugly of the 2012 race.

At this point, there are only 3 candidates that I could seriously support in the primary election. They are:

SARAH PALIN, former Governor of Alaska and 2008 Vice Presidential candidate. Palin's rogue political instincts make her an enemy of the political power players in both parties and a friend to the little guy. She's repeatedly defeated incumbents and establishments that she had no business defeating and the media caricature of some air-headed reality star will fade as the American people begin to see more of her directly. The recent Gallup poll found Palin's favorability the highest (at 71%) of any of the contenders among GOP and GOP-leaning independent voters. Palin's recent policty-heavy and politically passionate speeches have demonstrated that the Obama White House would have much to fear from the fearless Reaganite outsider. She wouldn't hold back and would play to win. That alone in the debate would leave Obama stuttering and angry within mere minutes. Palin's political instincts proved to be dead-on and to carry significant weight in 2010 and her polling, weak though it is, is almost identical to Ronald Reagan's polling at a significant time in 1979 against Jimmy Carter. Palin has been coy, but hiring new foreign policy advisors, a campaign manager for SarahPAC indicate that she hasn't ruled out a run just yet. If Palin gets in, she's my candidate.

HERMAN CAIN, successful business executive and talk radio host. If Palin chooses to sit out, Cain may well score her endorsement. Cain's recent public appearances and performance in the debate have push him from the bottom of the pack to one of the dark horses for 2012. His business savvy and successful career make him a highly-qualified candidate for CEO of the USA. He is also an outsider and unlikely to play the typical political games of the establishment.

MICHELE BACHMANN, Congresswoman from Minnesota. Bachmann is smart, media-savvy, and sufficiently conservative. She's a card-carrying member of Palin's "mama grizzlies." The only reason why she is not as high on my list as Cain and Palin is her lack of executive experience. Where Palin has decades of executive experience in private industry and public office (Wasilla Mayor, Alaska Oil & Gas Commission Chair, Alaska Conference of Mayors Chair, Alaska Governor) and Cain has decades of private industry executive experience, Bachmann has none. She has all the right ideas and the passion necessary to succeed, however, and would be a fine president. Her lack of executive experience, however, makes her inferior to Palin and Cain. Plus, given the RINO-licious governing approach of Speaker Boehner, I'd rather Bachmann stay in the house and go for Speaker so that President Palin and VP Cain have someone to work with on real reform.

And then there are the others. The following folks are at this point not supportable in the primary in my mind:

MITT ROMNEY, former governor of Massachusetts. Ran and governed as a moderate to liberal executive, chose to opt of re-election because it was clear he would lose and chose to instead re-brand himself as a hardcore conservative. Fails to connect with voters despite outspending his rivals. Attacks Obamacare but refuses to apologize for the hideous travesty of socialist experimentation that is Romneycare (also known as Obamacare's kid brother.) An oppurtunist with real authenticity problems and a darling of the corrupt establishment that needs to be fired.

TIM PAWLENTY, former governor of Minnesota. Nice guy. Okay governor. Okay executive. Pretty solidly conservative with a few shady patches. Zero charisma. No chance to win.

NEWT GINGRICH. former speaker of the House. Very Smart. Not electable this side of 1994. Past his prime and with a proven record of betraying conservatives on a wide array of issues. Also womanizing past to live down and the hypocrisy of engaging in said womanizing while publicly attacking President Clinton for the same thing. Not electable.

RICK SANTORUM, former senator from Pennsylvania. Too wishy-washy. Not forceful enough of a personality. Good guy. Just not a strong enough leader to pull off a presidential campaign.

JON HUNTSMAN, someone the establishment wants us to love. A complete no-name outside of establishment circles and his family. RINO. No deal.

GARY JOHNSON, crackpot, political hasbeen. Never even heard of this libertarian former governor from some southwestern state until this year. No chance.

RON PAUL, congressman from Texas. He will do better this year than he has in years past, but he comes off as crazy and he will be 77 years old. Why nobody makes an issue of this is beyond me. 77 is far too old to run for POTUS for the first time. Not going to win nomination.

MITCH DANIELS, governor of Indiana. Mitch fever is sweeping the elites. Why a man who is apparently terrified to admit is a conservative and is proposing all kinds of surrendering/truce-making on a wide array of conservative issues is exciting is beyond me. Is it that Obama will tower over him at the debates and be able to pat him on the head instead of shaking his hand? Is it because he will refuse to educate the public on constitutional conservatism, much less defend said political ideology? It seems to me we tried that approach in 2008 with John McCain and Barry steam-rolled him. No thanks. I'm thinking he won't be running anyway as he doesn't seem to have the "fire in the belly."

MIKE HUCKABEE is not running.
DONALD TRUMP is not running.
HALEY BARBOUR is not running.

A word of caution about CHRIS CHRISTIE, governor of New Jersey. He's not running and he's not ready. He's also not that conservative. National conservatives like Ann Coulter are swooning over the guy because he cut spending and stands up to unions. Being fiscally tough when there is not other option does not a conservative make. He's a bold man, but the situation here in New Jersey has forced him to appear more conservative than he actually is. He's certainly the most conservative New Jersey governor in my lifetime, but that's not saying much. Christie Whitman and Tom Kean made Karl Marx look like Ronald Reagan. Oh, and he thinks the Ground Zero mosque is a great idea, and a litany of other not-exactly-conservative positions. If elites convince him to run, it will be a shock to all that he's not the conservative they think he is. Plus, our state is in a huge mess. We need him here to fix it. Walking away in the middle of clean-up in aisle Jersey would be a political and fiscal disaster for both Christie and New Jersey.

So there you have it. Your 2012 state of the race.

Obama Silence on Libya Due To "Scheduling"

2011-02-23T16:42:00.000-05:00

Somebody get the President a new scheduling person.

Continuing to illustrate a Jimmy Carter-esque level of cluelessness where foreign policy is concerned, the new Obama Administration Press Secretary Jay Carney (presumably an improvement on the socially inept poster child of nerdy awkwardness that was the befuddled Mr. Gibbs) actually answered a question regarding the Obama administration's lack of public statement on the worsening conditions in Libya by citing scheduling conflicts. See for yourself:

Keep in mind that Libya's dictator Gaddafi has been in power for over four decades, during which he has been one of the most prominent anti-American sponsors of terrorist acts around the world. It was Gaddafi who ordered the terrorist attack on Pan Am Flight 103, an attack that killed 250 Americans, and Gaddafi that ordered the bombing of a German disco that also took the lives of American servicemen and women.

And keep in mind that Gaddafi's goons are literally gunning down folks in the streets for protesting. And shooting them from the air. (Side note: You'll remember the vocal media outrage when the Palin administration in Alaska was allowing for aerial shooting of wolves to assist in predator control and preserve other wildlife species. Apparently a brutal dictator responsible for hundreds of American deaths who has actual people shot from the air is not nearly as egregious a moral offense.)

Historically, Gaddafi was bombed by the Reagan administration in the 1980s (barely escaping with his life and becoming largely silent after that) and sought to "change his ways" during the Bush administration (once upon a time in America where terrorists and Islamic Jihadists were understood to be a threat to our nation.) In the similar recent unrest in Egypt, another dictator, Hosni Mubarak, a long-time American ally, and defender of Israel, albeit an imperfect one, was publicly denounced and virtually ordered into exile by Obama and his underlings. Indeed, Mr. Obama almost fell over himself in a mad dash to get to the TelePrompters to read a statement about his need to step down. He remains, however, strangely silent after days of mayhem and murder at the hands of Libya's anti-American, anti-Israel dictator. And it's just because of his schedule. There are more important things than national security and global stability. Like his packed public schedule on Sunday, which was empty. Or his busy public schedule on Monday, which was also empty. It is apparently more pressing to relax in private than to publicly condemn homicidal dictators. Additionally, a very busy Tuesday found the leader of the free world attending an all-important WTF Forum in Ohio. (Winning the Future! Duh!)

Of course, maybe it's for the best that he remains silent.

He is, after all, the same President Obama who delivered his famous Cairo Speech in 2009 lauding the contributions of Islamic people to America's history by citing the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796 (a treaty whereby the famous grand-daddies of today's Muslim pirates blackmailed the fledgling American nation in order to stop attacking our ships and kidnapping our citizens.) The newest generation of Muslim pirates continues to make fools of America as they continue to attack our citizens without fear of any major reprisal from the great toothless dragon of America.

Recently, the administration's refusal to publicly condemn the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and even suggest that they might deserve a seat at the table of a post-Mubarak Egypt has also been troubling to say the least. The Muslim Brotherhood supports worldwide Jihad and Islamic rule as per the writings of one of its core founders. And yet to the Obama administration, chock full of czars and radicals used to hanging on every word from anti-American radicals, they see no threat from these adherents to the religion of peace.

The Obama administration also famously dithered in the face of the revolts in Jihadist-run Iran.

It appears that in cases where American enemies and threats to democracy are concerned, Mr. Obama opts to remain silent and fill his schedule with golf outings in lieu of State Department briefings or press conferences. It is only in cases where pro-American dictators are on the verge of being overthrown by Islamic radicals hellbent on killing infidels worldwide that Mr. Obama fires up the scrolling fonts of his TelePrompters in order to do a public dramatic reading of support.

And yet, a simple former governor turned housewife from Alaska had the time to post a comment on the situation in Libya that completely dwarfs anything eminating from the White House in both clarity and strength.

UPDATE: It now appears that the president has cleared some time on his schedule later today to finally speak out on the situation in Libya. Here's hoping he doesn't accidently praise Libya for things that are actually a detriment to America's interests. Whatever he finally decrees from his socialist Ivory Tower, it will be too little too late. The timing, days and days after the situation began, will smack of political calculation and the empty rhetoric will fall flat.

President Obama has a real opportunity to shape the future of not just northern Africa and the Middle East, but that of the entire world, and he chose to delegate that to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Shades of Carter indeed.

Ronald Reagan at 100: Words of Wisdom from the Great Communicator

2011-02-05T13:16:00.001-05:00

As the 100th anniversary of President Ronald Reagan's birth approaches, savor some of these wonderful quotes from our late great president:

ON CHRISTIANITY AND FAITH:

"Sometimes when I'm faced with an unbeliever, an atheist, I am tempted to invite him to the greatest gourmet dinner that one could ever serve, and when we finished eating that magnificent dinner, to ask him if he believes there's a cook." President Ronald Reagan May 30, 1988

"Without God, there is no virtue, because there's no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we're mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coursening of society. And without God, democracy cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under." President Ronald Reagan GOP convention 1984

"Whatever happens now, I owe my life to God and will try to serve Him in every way I can." Diary entry after being released from the hospital following the 1981 assassination attempt on his life.

"Freedom prospers only where the blessings of God are avidly sought and humbly accepted." President Reagan at the National Association of Evangelicals in 1983

"It's unconceivable to me that anyone could accept this delegated authority without asking God's help. I pray that we who legislate and administer will be granted wisdom and strength beyond our own limited power; that with divine guidance we can avoid easy expediments, as we work to build a state where liberty under law and justice can triumph, where compassion can govern, and wherein the people can participate and prosper because of their government and not in spite of it." Governor Ronald Reagan January 5, 1967

ON FAMILY:

"When liberals say 'family' they mean 'big brother in Washington.' When we say 'family' we mean 'honor thy father and mother.'" President Ronald Reagan @ GOP rally in September 1988

"We know that the secret of America's success has been our drive to excel, a spirit born and nurtured by our families. With their dreams and hard work, they've built our nation, made her great, and kept her good. Everything we've accomplished began in those bedrock values parents have sought to impart throughout our history--values of faith in God, honesty, caring for others, personal responsibility, thrift, and initiative.

But families cannot prosper and keep America strong if government becomes a Goliath that preys upon their wealth, usurps their rights, and crushes their spirit. For too many years, overgrown government has stood in your way, taking mroe and more of what you earned, no matter how hard you tried."
President Reagan's radio address to the nation from Camp David on April 9, 1983.

"The rights of parents and the rights of family take precedence over those of Washington-based bureaucrats and social engineers." President Reagan's speech to National Association of Evangelicals on March 8, 1983

ON FREEDOM:

"Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance, it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for is comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again." Governor Ronald Reagan January 5, 1967

"We stand here on the only island of freedom that is left in the whole world. There is no place to flee to...no place to escape to. We defend freedom here or it is gone. There is no place for us to run, only to make a stand. And if we fail, I think we face telling our children, and our children's children, what is was we found more precious than freedom. Because I am sure that someday--if we fail in this--there will be a generation that will ask." Quoted by Lou Cannon in his book "Ronnie & Jesse: A Political Odyssey."

"Man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts." President Ronald Reagan's farewell address to the nation on January 11, 1989.

ON GOOD AND EVIL:

"I urge you to beware the temptation of pride--the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and labeling both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil." President Reagan to National Association of Evangelicals in 1983

"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid." President Ronald Reagan to CPAC in 1981

ON GOVERNMENT:

"The government is Washington is spending some $7 million every minute I talk to you...If they'll stop spending, I'll stop talking." Ronald Reagan campaign speech in 1976

"The best view of big government is in the rearview mirror as we leave it behind." President Reagan at Spirit of America rally in 1984.

"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government program is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" Ronald Reagan's "Time for Choosing" Speech 1964.

"If you want to make sure crime doesn't pay, let the government run it." Governor Ronald Reagan 1967.

"There seems to be an increasing awareness of something we Americans have known for some time--that the ten most dangerous words in the English language are "Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." President Ronald Reagan's address to the Future Farmers of America in 1988.

"Either you will control your government, or government will control you." Ronald Reagan speech to the Southern GOP Convention in 1973.

"They say the world has become too complexfor simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right." Ronald Reagan's "Time for Choosing" Speech, 1964

ON LIFE:

"I, too, always believed God's greatest gift is human life and that we have a duty to protect the life of an unborn child. Until someone can prove the unborn child is not a life, shouldn't we give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is?" President Ronald Reagan's radio address to the nation January 22, 1983.

ON TAXES:

"Republicans believe every day is the fourth of July, but Democrats believe every day is April 15."

"Like federal employees, taxpayers also work for the government--they just don;t have to take a civil service exam. Here in America, lad of opportunity, governments at all levels are taxing away 40 percent of our nation's income. We've been creeping closer to socialism, a system that someone once said works only in heaven, where it isn't needed, and in hell, where they've already got it." President Reagan's radio address to the nation April 9 1983.

There are, of course, countless other examples of Reagan's wisdom throughtout the years, but these are just meant to be a sampling of the brilliance of our former president. These are just a glimmer of why Ronald Reagan has been one of my heroes and the greatest president of my lifetime. They are just a taste of why so many folks like myself have been motivated to care about and participate in the political process of America by a man who helped America find herself again in the midst of the Carter-led malaise of the late 1970s. They demonstrate the eternal optimism, common sense and steel spine of the man who brought an end to Soviet oppression of eastern Europe and helped to restore America's miliary and economic might at a critical juncture in our nation's history.

It is for all of these things that we celebrate with joy and immense appreciation the 100th anniversary of President Ronald Reagan's birth.

Thank the Lord that America had a leader like Ronald Reagan. May we see his like again soon.

21 Christians in Egypt Killed by Terrorist Car Bomb

2011-01-01T11:54:00.000-05:00

As reported in the Mail Online:

A car bombing outside a church killed 21 people in Egypt's northern city of Alexandria as worshippers gathered to mark the New Year.

The Interior Ministry said 24 people were also wounded in the bombing, which prompted hundreds of Christians to take to the streets in protest.

Some Christians and Muslims pelted each other with rocks, a witness said. Cars were torched.

"We sacrifice our souls and our blood for the cross" was the cry of Christians at the scene of the crime...as the Egyptian Coptic Council Member Kameel Sadeeq stated, "People went in to the church to pray to God but ended up as scattered limbs."

FOR THE WHOLE STORY: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343247/Car-bomb-Egyptian-church-kills-21-worshippers-gather-celebrate-New-Year.html#ixzz19nrUU0lw

NJ Civil Service reform and municipal cost sharing a smart move - Philadelphia Camden County Conservative | Examiner.com

2010-12-10T16:59:00.000-05:00

My latest Examiner column on the current civil service reform debate in New Jersey. Governor Christie has the right approach in this particular "toolbox" for taking on local costs and avoiding the costly fiscal mistakes of his GOP predecessor Christie Whitman.

Democrats oppose it. Surprise!

NJ Civil Service reform and municipal cost sharing a smart move - Philadelphia Camden County Conservative | Examiner.com

Thanksgiving Proclamations by President Washington (1789) and President Lincoln (1863)

2010-11-24T19:28:00.000-05:00

Washington and Lincoln understood God's role in our nation's prosperity.

The following is the first presidential Thanksgiving proclamation.

It was given by President George Washington:

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to"recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

While presidents issued Thanksgiving proclamations each year, when to celebrate Thanksgiving varied from year to year and often state to state. In 1863, in the midst of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln issued a proclamation fixing the last Thursday in November as the national day of thanksgiving (this was later changed by President Franklin Roosevelt, who set it to be the "fourth" and not necessarily the last Thursday in November):

By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation.

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln

William H. Seward,

Secretary of State

George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are just two of the many prominent American leaders throughout our rich history that understood the role of God in our nation's founding, prosperity and future. Their words reaffirm the centrality of faith in the American culture, government and very way of life. May the Americans of 2010 not forget the truth these wise men here espouse about the indispensibility of God in sustaining our nation.

God bless America.

Memo to GOP Establishment: Drop the Elitism

2010-11-13T13:08:00.002-05:00

The real lesson of the 2010 mid-term elections seems to be completely lost on the Democratic party.

President Obama had a melancholy press conference the next day where he professed a renewed love of "bipartisanship" and "compromise" after 2 years of "I won" and "sit in the back of the bus" outbursts meant to silence any questions of his absolute power. He has spent his tenure thus far totally ignoring any and all suggestions from his political opponents (or "enemies" as he refers to them) while claiming that they have no ideas.

His idea of bipartisanship began to take shape in that press conference and was further fleshed out in the subsequent days when he offered weak support for mere "tweaking" of the insidious Obamacare bill, and remained non-committal on making the Bush tax cuts permanent (he's since caved a bit.)

He then went on the latest American Apology tour, where he opined at the G20 that America's "out-sized influence" over world affairs was finally waning and that it was a good thing before attacking Israel from the Shariah-law soaked Islamic country of Indonesia.

Nancy Pelosi, meanwhile, as the House Speaker who presided over the largest mid-term election loss in over half a century decided it was time to party (albeit with the lowest number of Democratic House members since FDR.) Perhaps it was the unparalleled success of ramming bills through congress in the dead of night against the will of the people while sustaining a nearly 10% unemployment rate for the better part of a year that inspired her giddy jubilance. She repeatedly tells anyone who listens how "effective" she is and claims that the masses are urging her to stay in charge. Indeed.

Whatever the reason, it's clear that the Democratic party that was decimated in 2010 continues to make the death march toward 2012.

And yet, it's not all that cut and dried.

GOP establishment folks have also demonstrated since the election that they too fail to understand the message of the election.

Many brave GOP establishment folks, the majority of which have such unmatched valor that they choose to remain anonymous, have decided to blame Sarah Palin, the tea party and Jim DeMint (in that order) for the failure of the GOP to re-take the senate. They cite Sharron Angle's bewildering loss to Harry Reid in Nevada and the ill-fated senatorial broom ride by alleged witch Christine O'Donnell in Delaware as seats that the GOP could have won were it not for the evils of the grass roots conservative folks. Both races, it should be noted, where GOP elites spent a good portion of their rhetoric on attacking the GOP candidates instead of helping the cause.

Rove. Krauthammer. Noonan. Various GOP senators. Many folks who, at times, have been great spokespeople for the common sense conservative cause. Folks, who have allowed their cozy positions within the establishment to taint their worldview.

With one voice they sing of the folly of Palin's tea party. And yet exit polling suggests that RINO Mike Castle would have also lost to the formerly bearded but still Marxist Chris Coons in Delaware. And to be quite honest, Harry Reid would not have won without the SEIU and a coincidental power outage.

They also neglect the fact that Palin did not endorse Sharron Angle in the primary. It was not until the general election that Mama Grizzly got her "grrr" on in support of Angle. What would the establishment folks have her do in that situation? Endorse Reid?

The reality is that Sarah Palin, the tea party, and Jim DeMint (in that order) largely saved the GOP by helping common sense conservatives get elected and keeping the tea party folks within the large GOP tent instead of the third party option that they seemed destined to pursue.

The seats that the GOP lost were lost regardless of the candidate, but many of the the seats won are now occupied by common sense conservatives who actually believe in the Constitution. The efforts of Palin, DeMint and the tea party during this election cycle will be felt for generations.

So when out-of-touch elitists like Peggy Noonan attack Governor Palin as "ignorant" and a "nincompoop," a few words of warning are needed.

When you attack the tea party and Sarah Palin, you attack us. Most of your base didn't go to Harvard and Yale. Mainly because we couldn't afford it. We got sensible college educations at local or state schools and have worked hard to provide for our families.

We look to historically important figures like Ronald Reagan for our inspiration. Reagan was born into poverty and attended the little-known Eureka College for his degree.

And yet he proved to be a serious and important leader. Perhaps the most important president in the last 100 years.

Reagan famously quipped that the nine scariest words in the English language were, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." He often opined that government is not the "solution" to our problems, it is very often the "problem."

This common sense wisdom followed founding father Thomas Jefferson's oft-quoted gem that the "government is best that governs least."

And yet, we've found that even within the rank and file of Reagan's supposed "big tent" of conservatism, that these very simplistic values are demeaned regularly. And by folks who claim to carry the mantle of Reaganism.

Your condescension toward the people supposedly in your own political movement is jarring in it's historic ignorance and revolting in its intensity. Throughout history the "not qualified" and "stupid" labels have been used to de-humanize figures who oppose the left. Ronald Reagan and George Bush were both said to be unelectable dunces. Serious questions arose as to whether Reagan, as a former actor, was qualified to be the president.

Claiming to be wise, you've become fools, falling for the age-old argument of your political enemies in some warped attempt to gain universal adulation from your fellow elites across the aisle.

So lacking in clarity are you that you prop up one-term Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney or less-than-half-term Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie as admirable and qualified presidential candidates, even while using Sarah Palin's two and half years as governor against her.

Palin has more political executive experience than Christie or Romney. Where are the constant questions as to the qualifications for these men? The lack of questions regarding Romney are particularly interesting given the fact that Romney spent much of his one term passing a mini-me version of Obamacare, raising taxes, and governing as a pro-choice moderate before miraculously ending his term as a (largely absent and campaigning) fiscal and social conservative.

With 6 years as the Mayor of Wasilla (during which time her fellow Alaskan mayors elected her to Chair Alaska's Conference of Mayors) and 2 and a half years as governor, she still has more executive experience than Barack Obama and Joe Biden combined.

And on every issue of this election cycle, she has led the opposition to Obama's leftist agenda, which no doubt, was a major factor in her resignation. In that sense, Sarah Palin has done far more for her country this year than she would have if she remained as the Alaska's governor.

To be blunt: the GOP establishment and their sycophantic voices in the media simply don't get it. Sadly many of these same folks are the ones who led the GOP into political exile by abandoning their principles in favor of their lofty positions.

Thankfully, folks like Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, Allen West and Michelle Bachmann do get it.

Sarah Palin speaks for us when she cautions the newly-elected folks in her recently posted open letter:

I have a simple answer: stick to the principles that propelled your campaigns. When you take your oath to support and defend our Constitution and to faithfully discharge the duties of your office, remember that present and future generations of “We the People” are counting on you to stand by that oath. Never forget the people who sent you to Washington. Never forget the trust they placed in you to do the right thing.

So put a lid on your vicious attacks on the Mama Grizzly and the tea party folks from every walk of life who propelled you back into power. These are serious times and they require serious leadership not elitist disdain. Ronald Reagan reminded us throughout his tenure that there were no easy answers, but there are simple ones. We're prepared to give up our political power to adhere to those simple solutions and will move heaven and earth to restore America's foundation.

We need to work together to undo the damage done by BOTH PARTIES to our nation's economic standing by reckless and nonsensical spending and monetary policy.

The elite have had their turn at the helm and they've presided over double digit unemployment, a diminishing of America's standing in the world, and a dimming of the American dream.

It's time for the people to take back the reigns and restore America's greatness.

And a note to the all-knowing elitist GOP oracles: Sarah Palin is on the right side of history here. Join her or get out of the way.

Sarah Palin and the tea party will be playing a large role in restoring America's greatness both now, and in 2012 and beyond with or without the approval of the GOP elites. Should those GOP elites join their Democratic opponents in failing to understand the message of 2010's election, they will join the out of work masses as a new liberty loving army of tea-sipping Mama and Papa Grizzlies get their "grrr" on to renew, revive and restore America!

This is no time to go all wobbly GOP. There's a stampede of liberty coming.

Vote for Dale Glading in New Jersey’s 1st District - Philadelphia Camden County Conservative | Examiner.com

2010-10-27T20:48:00.000-04:00

Vote for Dale Glading in New Jersey’s 1st District - Philadelphia Camden County Conservative | Examiner.com

Glading, Andrews finally debate - Philadelphia Camden County Conservative | Examiner.com

2010-10-26T21:33:00.000-04:00

Glading, Andrews finally debate - Philadelphia Camden County Conservative | Examiner.com

My Father to Speak about Beverly Civil War Hospital

2010-10-22T17:11:00.000-04:00

The following article was published in the Burlington County Times about my father. I had to re-post here to brag a little...

Author to speak about Beverly Civil War hospital

TEXT SIZE

By: Jeannie O'Sullivan

Burlington County Times

By Jeannie O’Sullivan
Staff writer
josullivan@phillyBurbs.com
609-871-8068

BEVERLY — Bill Hughes had a typical kid’s attention span when it came to history lessons, especially when it came to his family’s Civil War roots.
“Growing up, I would always hear my father talk about my great-great grandfather, Lt. Col. Newton T. Colby, a member of the Union Army, but I never paid any attention,” said Hughes, a retired school teacher.

Now Hughes, a Civil War buff, can’t get enough history. His eventual fascination and research led to a book in 2003, “The Civil War Papers of Lt. Col. Newton T. Colby, New York Infantry,” published by McFarland & Company, Inc., and then his second tome, “U.S. General Hospital at Beverly, New Jersey, 1864-1865,” which he published himself in 2006.

The author will speak about Beverly’s Civil War hospital at 7 p.m. Oct. 25 at St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church, at Warren and Wilmerton streets, Beverly.

The U.S. General Hospital at Beverly, which had been the site of a rendezvous camp for the formation of regiments, operated from 1864 to 1865 in the three-story manufacturing building along the railroad where Gray’s Trucking is located today. Roughly 2,850 soldiers would move through this facility during that time span.

Hughes’ fascination with the hospital started when he first visited the Beverly National Ceremony in 1998 during the wreath-laying ceremony. Examining the grave markers, he noticed few were from New Jersey.

“I started asking questions,” said Hughes, of Stratford, Camden County.

But when he wasn’t getting satisfying answers, he poured over old newspapers at the Burlington County Library, conducted research at the N.J. Division of Archives & Records Management and even made a trip to U.S. National Archives in Washington, D.C. There, he uncovered a treasure trove of information about the hospital, including patient registers, lists of surgeons and, most importantly, lists of the deceased.

He found 212 people died in the hospital, giving rise to the need for the cemetery.

The book traces the hospital’s roots and the people who shaped it: the dedicated surgeons and nurses, the brave yet gravely injured soldiers, the hardscrabble employees who took advantage and the spirited community that rallied around both staff and the patients.

The building burned to the ground in June 1872, years after the hospital had closed and the building was occupied by a cordage works.

The book documents Hughes’ research, and includes photographs and soldiers’ medical case studies written by doctors. Hughes said he also owns letters written by one of the hospital’s patients.

Hughes’ speech is presented by the Riverfront Historical Society.

“It’s an important part of Beverly’s history and Burlington County’s history, too,” Dennis Rogers, president of the historical society, said of the hospital.

Anyone interesting in purchasing “U.S General Hospital at Beverly, New Jersey, 1864-1865,” which costs $15, may contact Hughes at 856-627-8248 or NYSV107th@aol.com.

Be Partisan, Be Ideological, Be Proud (Oh And Repeal Obamacare)

2010-10-20T20:52:00.001-04:00

For all of the negative things that I’ve written about President Obama over the years, he is deserving of praise in his devotion to his deeply held political convictions and unwillingness to waiver from them, however sinister and misguided they may be.

In other words, a little ideology can be a good thing.

Too often in the media narrative, ideologues from both sides are demonized ad nauseam as being “what’s wrong with America” on account of all their dangerous “closed-minded” approach to politics.

Having an intact political governing philosophy seems these days to be akin to a scarlet letter of shame branding the wearer as worthy of public scorn and ridicule.

Only the all-knowing, all-sensing, all-caring moderates have the open-minded brilliance to pick and choose from what each side has to offer in a cornucopia of wave-riding lunacy that negates one policy with another in an effort to make everyone feel better as the communal hymn of Kumbaya begins.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. As voters themselves do not do the physical act of governing, they need to have clear choices in elections and the confidence that comes from honest and principled government. Wimpy middle-of-the-road moderates need not apply. Their lack of a guiding principle makes them erratic at best and extremely susceptible to manipulation by the media elites and talking heads.

Leaders lead, they don’t rock back and forth and sway in the breeze. It is not wrong to expect our candidates to have a coherent and firm political philosophy. May our left be left and our right be right.

Too often, in the name of bipartisanship, principles and campaign promises are tossed aside as a lurid display of self-serving “compromises” gives birth to the very programs, laws and agendas that the voters thought they were rejecting.

This is not to suggest that government folks shouldn’t work together where they can. It is, however, a plea to reject the all-too-common abandonment of principled leadership and common sense that is a side effect of elected office.

So, while I oppose everything Barack Obama stands for, I applaud his political clarity in leading (even though he nefariously hid that ideology from the faint-susceptible masses in 2008.)

And, quite frankly, I’m ready for an order of that courage and clarity on the GOP side (hold the side of arrogance please.)

No, then we can’t win. We need Mike Castle and Lisa Murkowski! Only moderates can win elections! Conservatives, like Ronald Reagan, just can’t win. That has been disproved time and time again. Conservatives with confidence will win every time. Just ask Chris Christie.

Former President Ronald Reagan made the case for ideology and partisanship in 1975 following the Watergate-inspired GOP losses in the mid-term election. His advice went unheeded by a party driven to moderation by Gerald Ford who lost the 1976 election to Jimmy Carter.

Reagan rightly identified that, then, as now, Americans were “hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.”

People aren’t inspired to action by befuddled moderate wind-blown wandering. A person who is “undecided” on healthcare reform or fiscal policy is not what the nation needs. A person who votes for funding the war before he votes against it isn’t much help.

Reagan continued in his famous 1975 CPAC speech:

"I don’t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, ‘We must broaden the base of our party’--when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt."

So when the specter of “bipartisan” compromise, known in some circles as abject surrender, is raised by GOP politicians regarding Obamacare before the election is even held, one has to worry about the knee-strength of the GOP. As Lady Thatcher used to say, “this is no time to go wobbly.” And should the GOP fail to heed that advice, they will only consign themselves to political irrelevance, inevitably bound for a lengthy stay in the political wilderness.

More importantly, however, they will sign America’s capitalist death certificate as the devolution of the freest, most prosperous nation into the utter failure of socialism will be complete.

As James Capretta writes in National Review, “there’s no avoiding ‘repeal and replace’” as it is “essential for limited government.” For, if Obamacare is not repealed, and soon, it will become institutionalized pork lulling an entirely new voting bloc into submission of another government master. Obama and his allies know this already and are banking that just enough weak-willed RINOs and a broad assortment of career politicians in both parties who are more interested in their own personal power and fortunes than the interests of the republic, will cave to the intoxicating draught of Washington power.

Dovetailing with another National Review piece by Victor Davis Hanson, Capretta argues that the voters are only now waking up from the folly of 2008 with a new determination to make things right. Voters, he argues “are ready to take matters into their own hands and send a brigade of genuine change agents to the House and Senate on November 2.”

However, he further warns that “these new members will come with clear marching orders: Cut government spending, hold the line on taxes, and shake up Washington in ways not seen in many years.”

In other words, we need some good old-fashioned Ronald Reagan/Calvin Coolidge-style common sense conservatism to rule the day. Like a knight in shining armor, conservatism needs to be the agenda and the guiding political philosophy of the new GOP elected officials.

Partisanship and sticking to a defined political ideology is never easy and is often not pretty. But folks shouldn’t enter politics because it is easy or to become popular. If validation and a life of ease is the intended goal, apply for a reality show.

Serious times and serious responsibilities call for serious men and women. Folks who have a vision and passion and communicate that freely and without guile to the constituents. Folks that will adhere to their stated goals and campaign promises. Folks that respect the will of the people and are worthy of their trust.

Partisanship and ideology can be a good thing. And they’re needed now more than ever.

Philadelphia Inquirer’s endorsement of Rob Andrews flawed - Philadelphia Camden County Conservative | Examiner.com

2010-10-18T21:55:00.000-04:00

My article refuting the reasoning behind the Philadelphia Inquirer's endorsement of Rob Andrews. My next column for Examiner will be my formal endorsement of Dale Glading and a review of all the many reasons why he's best suited to represent the 1st district in congress.

Philadelphia Inquirer’s endorsement of Rob Andrews flawed - Philadelphia Camden County Conservative | Examiner.com

Further Evidence Nancy Pelosi is insane "Food Stamps and Unemployment"

2010-10-16T11:22:00.000-04:00

Nancy Pelosi, so obsessed with government spending, actually states that food stamps and unemployment benefits are the biggest bang for our buck in terms of fixing the economy and creating jobs. And she's but 2 heartbeats away from the presidency. Here is our brilliant Botox-enthusiast in her own words:

Rob Andrews finds a debate he likes--And it’s about Obamacare - Philadelphia Camden County Conservative | Examiner.com

2010-10-15T23:41:00.000-04:00

Stop by my Examiner.com site and read my latest. Imagine my shock when I read that Rob Andrews was hungry for a debate.

Given that he refuses to appear publicly for debate with his opponent Dale Glading, it was quite interesting to see him preening for the national media while feigning interest in a public debate about his proudest accomplishment--Obamacare.

Rob Andrews finds a debate he likes--And it’s about Obamacare - Philadelphia Camden County Conservative | Examiner.com

The Madness of King Robert Andrews & His "Campaign" Spending

2010-10-11T17:38:00.002-04:00

Rob Andrews spends too much money.

This is a fact that has recently come to light through his policy positions and close scrutiny of his voting record. His voting record is nearly identical to Nancy Pelosi, and his policy positions on issues ranging from healthcare to foreign policy to fiscal policy are far to the left of even the heavily Democratic first district of New Jersey.

Now we are beginning to see through FEC reporting that Rob Andrews is just as out of control and addicted to other people’s money privately as he is publicly.

Serious questions regarding his honesty and integrity have emerged as key details of these reports covering campaign expenditures are revealed. Questions that left unanswered, seem to suggest that Andrews is indeed unfit for public office.

Keep in mind, that Sir Robert Andrews’ “campaigns” amount to nothing more than a personal slush fund for supporting the lavish Andrews lifestyle and for providing a smorgasbord of goodies to his gaggle of sycophantic supporters.

Perhaps that’s what “campaigns” do when they don’t have the usual expenses associated with campaigning for public office. For example, “campaigns” that refuse to engage in public debate with their opponents, don’t bother to create a website, and make virtually no public advertisements or public appearances, might be looking for things to justify their fundraising.

Our man Andrews spent $23,000 of his campaign money on limo rides alone. But really, don’t we all?

The Andrews “campaign” has also spend over $160,000 on lavish hotel stays, fine dining, and off-the-hook parties. Notably absent from the invite list to these parties: the voters of the first district. Only cronies, lobbyists and George Norcross make the list.

Indeed His Royal Highness, Lord Robert, also spent over $75,000 on gifts for his gaggle of sycophantic BFFs. His “campaign” largess provided flowers, chocolates, and toys to his many close admirers.

Many voters in his district work two or three jobs to try to provide birthday or Christmas gifts for their children, while Mr. Andrews doesn’t have to pay a dime.

Think for a second about how many toys for your children or flowers for your spouse $75,000 would buy. Then think about the fact that not a dime came from Mr. Andrews’ wallet.

Must be nice.

Think of it as a reverse Robin Hood. The entitled ruling liberal elites in Washington continue to fund their lavish lifestyles on someone else’s dime while taxing the snot out of their constituents to grease the tracks of the ongoing gravy train.

Or perhaps, think of it as a special “Rob Andrews” edition of stimulus spending. The esteemed Mr. Andrews is no doubt stimulated by all of his fine dining, posh accommodations, and scenic limo rides.

King Robert’s opponent, Dale Glading, remarked that, “at a time when unemployment in the First District stands at almost 10%, Congressman Andrews' luxurious lifestyle is a smack in the face to his constituents. Rob's free spending ways are the same, whether it's with campaign contributions or taxpayers' dollars."

He went on to point out the disparity between Lord Andrews and his constituents, by adding that, “The median family income in the First District is $47,000 and Rob Andrews spent half that amount on rides in fancy limousines. Career politicians like Rob Andrews have no concept of how the rest of us live."

The gravy train of King Robert’s “campaign” doesn’t end there.

His “campaign” has extended its generosity across the river to the Walnut Street Theater in Philadelphia.

How nice. He supports the arts.

Maybe. Or maybe there is a little bit of financial quid pro quo going on with the missus.

You’ll remember that once upon a time Sir Robert Andrews and his merry men promised back in 2008 that even if they failed in their valiant attempt to slay the aged dragon Lautenberg (who puts “senior” in New Jersey’s “senior senator”) he would not return to his comfortable perch on the ballot for the first district.

That seat, he chose to bequeath to the Lady Camille Andrews in a rare moment of political chivalry.

Yet, when Sir Robert was bested in the primary, he simply bumped milady Camille from the ballot and reclaimed his throne on the ballot.

So, it should come as no surprise that the Walnut Street Theater, which has been the recipient of over $68,000 of Lord Robert’s campaign largesse since 2008, has a Board of Trustees Member named Camille Andrews. Or perhaps that an immediate family member of Lord Robert had roles in plays performed there corresponding to the timing of those massive donations.

Additionally, Lady Camille Andrews is also the recipient of lavish “campaign” funded Valentine’s Day dinners and Mother’s Day dinners in 2009 and 2010. Perhaps Sir Robert was courting Camille’s political endorsement as a former candidate for his seat and trying to avoid a costly primary battle with the missus? You be the judge.

Either way, Rob Andrews’ deceitful and self-serving handling of “campaign” funds is, at best, questionable, and most likely illegal. That he would skirt or break federal election law spending regulations to live a lavish lifestyle of self-entitlement does not speak well of his personal integrity and fiscal accountability. It serves as yet another painful example of Mr. Andrews being unfit for public office and unworthy of the voters’ trust.

On the bright side, at least we now know what the going rate for holding his ballot position is.

For his unseemly campaign slush fund and wanton disregard for fiscal sanity of any kind, Mr. Andrews can no longer be trusted to conduct the peoples’ business in good faith. The voters of the first district would do well to remind Mr. Andrews what life is like in this economy for so many Americans by firing him and electing Dale Glading.

Germany's Reunification 20 Years Later: Thanks President Reagan!

2010-10-03T17:19:00.004-04:00

Twenty years ago Germany was reunified. After years of oppression from the brutal communist regime of the blood-thirsty Soviet Union, the Berlin Wall finally came down.

As we mark this historic landmark, it is fitting to stop and remember the great American president who, more than any other single human being, made this event possible.

President Ronald Reagan's bold leadership during the Cold War often put him at odds with the political elites in Washington. Early in his administration he called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" and the chattering media and Washington elites became unhinged with derision, condemnation and outright ridicule. Reagan was a dangerous loon to listen to the conventional wisdom of the day.

Folks out in the heartland, however, understood Reagan's speech and deep down in their hearts, the American liberty-soaked blood flowing through confirmed to them that he was right. Liberty is in our nation's DNA and in the heart of our people. Throughout our nation's history, our story has been one of liberty and freedom.

When elites mocked Reagan's simplistic approach to the evils of the Soviet Union, everyday folks prayed for their leader and stood firm with him.

For what else could someone call a nation that oppressed people, imprisoned people, denied freedom of speech and religion, and sought to subjugate the world to it's oppressive communist dictatorship. It was evil pure and simple, and America finally had a leader brave enough to say that.

President Ronald Reagan worked closely with Pope John Paul II and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to end that generation's greatest threat to liberty and freedom.

So when President Reagan took to the stage in Berlin, at the sight of the Berlin Wall to tell Mr. Gorbachev to tear down that wall, history was made. Certainly members within the inner circle sought to pacify the Soviet Union by toning down the rhetoric. Reagan, however, always understood great truths and how to communicate them.

The biggest weapon in Reagan's arsenal was not the vast military build-up he presided over, the immense nuclear arsenal at his disposal, or the vast economic wealth of the nation he led. It was in the strength of his ideas, the clarity in his convictions and the power of his words.

Metaphorically speaking, Reagan's demand to "tear down this wall" was nothing short of a nuclear bomb that ended the Soviet Union's brutal oppression of the German people.

It's interesting that in 2010 as America's president dabbles in Marxist utopian dogma and "fundamental change" for the nation that Reagan loved so much, it is Germany that is leading the world in economic recovery and free market principles.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has followed the common sense conservative economic model that Reagan championed over his lifetime and unleashed the economic might of the German people.

And so, the nation liberated by Reagan is now leading the world back to the economic freedom that he championed in life.

Take a moment to enjoy the sunny optimism and bold principled leadership of President Reagan by re-living a portion of his famous Berlin Wall speech. And after you do, thank God that He allowed Ronald Reagan to lead our nation and the world during some very serious and dangerous times.

Congratulations Dale Glading!

2010-10-02T22:42:00.000-04:00

Congratulations to our good friend Dale Glading in his ongoing David and Goliath battle to unseat Representative Rob Andrews (D-NJ). His stunning victory in the national poll suggests that this race is gaining national attention and about to come into some much needed financing for the final weeks of this important election!

From the Glading 2010 website:

Glading Wins Nationwide Poll

First Congressional District Candidate Dale Glading (R-Barrington) decisively won a nationwide on-line poll this week, garnering almost 54% of the vote against nine other prominent congressional candidates. Glading received 739 of the 1,375 votes cast, defeating his closest competitor by more than 400 votes.

Right Klik is the sponsor of the Ten Buck Friday poll. The weekly winner is then featured on 80 national conservative blogs with readers being encouraged to send campaign contributions to the winning candidate. Past winners of the Right Klik poll include Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle, Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann; and New Jersey Congressional candidate Anna Little.

“I am deeply honored to have won this week’s poll, especially considering the quality of the competition,” Glading said. “To receive more than 50% of the vote in a 10-way race is very gratifying.”

“It is extremely humbling to be included alongside of nationally-recognized conservative candidates like Michelle Bachmann, Sharron Angle and Anna Little,” Glading added. “These poll results are one more indication that our campaign is starting to attract national attention.”

“We have seized the momentum in our race against Rob Andrews,” Glading concluded. “People all across South Jersey are recognizing that in order to change things in Washington, you need to first change congressmen.”

For God & country,

Dale Glading

Republican Candidate for Congress, NJ-1

Media Tries To Prop Up Absentee Andrews With Zogby Poll

2010-10-02T22:39:00.000-04:00

What does all of that mean?

The first thing that means is that this poll is not accurate. No poll of “registered voters” is to be trusted this close to the election and that rule is even more important in such a dramatic political environment. Any political analyst will tell you that. The only surveys that have any basis in reality at this point are “likely voters.” Camden and Gloucester counties are flush with Democratic voters, but sampling “registered” instead of “likely” voters fails to record the intensity gap between the GOP and Democrats during this election year and downplays the abandonment of incumbent Democrats like Andrews that many Democrats are doing in massive numbers.

In other words, the 1st district has a much higher number of Democrats than Republicans, and without weighting the poll to reflect “likely” and thus more enthusiastic voters, you don’t even get close to the accurate picture of what’s going on.

Additionally, the poll’s methodology of weighting for “age” and “race” and by maintaining the sample “proportionally” to location and population skews the result in favor of Andrews.

The race weighting alone will give Andrews an inflated showing. African-American voters heavily favor Democratic candidates and turned out in massive numbers to elect Barack Obama in 2008. Those same voters stayed home just one year later and didn’t deliver enough votes in areas like Camden & Gloucester Counties to re-elect Jon Corzine. Every indicator supports the idea that this year will be closer to 2009 than 2008.

The weighting for population will also skew the results by over-emphasizing urban turnout. Indicators across the country are pointing to a massive suburban turnout and a light turnout in the urban areas. This poll quite frankly ignores that trend. Jon Corzine did as well in 2009, but when the votes were tallied at the end of the night, suburban voters in Gloucester County pushed Christie over the top, and the lack of turnout in Camden dramatically reduced Corzine’s margin of victory in the traditionally Democratic Camden County enough to fail to offset Christie’s strong showing in the traditionally Republican counties.

This poll makes no mention of weighting for party affiliation or ideology. Every major poll has shown consistently a major “enthusiasm” gap between traditionally Republican and traditionally Democratic voters. The Democrats are demoralized and apathetic. Their positions on the top 10 national issues are on the opposite side of the majority of Americans. They also own the economy whether they want to or not given their strangle-hold on Washington right now. This poll even disputed itself by claiming that the top two issues that voters care about are the economy and health care, and yet Andrews, an author of the wildly unpopular (even in New Jersey) health care bill, gets high marks for his job approval.

There is virtually nothing going in the Democrats’ favor this election cycle. It’s the perfect political storm and this poll doesn’t make any attempt to capture that.

The only reasons for such a blatantly inept poll could be incompetency or a nefarious attempt to sway the electorate. Given Zogby’s reputation nationally, we can rule out the incompetency option. This poll under the direction of Stockton College was conducted in such a manner as to intentionally favor the Democrat. Any clear-thinking political analyst will tell you that. The very fact that no media coverage of this poll makes any reference to the other 2 recent polls that show Glading leading speaks volumes through their sins of omission.

Finally, as inept as this poll really is, this political year is an anomaly. Political polling throughout the season has largely failed to capture the will of the people. Sarah Palin, we’re told, is wildly unpopular and polarizing and yet she’s a bestselling author, brings ratings spikes to every show she appears on and finds herself mobbed by thousands upon thousands of people at every public appearance (while Obama can’t even give tickets away to his events.) An endorsement by Palin turns around the political fortunes of the most obscure candidate and turns them into the front-runner. Joe Miller, Christine O’Donnell, Nikki Haley, Sharron Angle and Marco Rubio won elections (or forced their sniveling RINO opponent to withdraw and become an Obama-approved “independent”) that traditional polling done just days prior indicated they would lose by double digits. There is a furor and passion among tea party activists--everyday Americans from all walks of life that represent Republican, Democratic and Independent voters who are tired of business as usual. This is not a traditional year and traditional polling cannot accurately paint a picture of the electorate.

Even a casual glance at local media websites defies the findings of the Stockton poll. The precious few articles carried by the Courier-Post or Philadelphia Inquirer of the Andrews-Glading race are covered by page after page of anti-Andrews and pro-Glading user comments to the tune of about 9 to 1.

The poll may be the narrative that Rob Andrews would have you believe, but it’s not reality. The voters of the 1st district will have their voices heard in November and all of the political tea leaves point to a much stronger than expected performance by New Jersey’s own Mr. Smith--Dale Glading.

UPDATE: Dale Glading won a national online poll for "Ten Buck Fridays" for conservative candidates that should help bring in some funding for his campaign. Information on the win can be found on his website at www.glading2010.com.