Get Adobe Flash player


GOP Candidates Weigh in on Cain’s Exit

From The Blaze:

Herman Cain’s former rivals are weighing in on his departure from the presidential race, uniformly praising his role in the campaign.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman — who earlier this week called for Cain to bow out of the race, calling the allegations against him a distraction — was the first to issue an official press release on his departure.

“Herman Cain offered a unique and valuable voice to the debate over how to reform our country’s uncompetitive tax code and turn around the economy,” Huntsman said. “I understand his decision and wish him and his family the best.”

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose surging campaign is expected to benefit from Cain’s exit, praised his 9-9-9 tax plan.

“Herman Cain’s 999 plan got our country talking about the critical issue of tax reform and he elevated the dialogue of the primary,” Gingrich wrote on Twitter. He added: “I am proud to know Herman Cain and consider him a friend and I know he will continue to be a powerful voice for years to come.”

At a campaign stop in New Hampshire prior to Cain’s announcement, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said he wishes Cain well with whatever he decides.

“I wish him well,” Romney said, adding that if he ends his campaign, he hopes Cain supporters would take a good look at all the remaining candidates in the field when picking another one to support.

Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann echoed Romney’s sentiments, with a message on her campaign’s Twitter account reading, “I wish Herman, his wife Gloria, and his family all the best.”

“Herman Cain provided an important voice. His ideas & energy generated tremendous enthusiasm for the conservative movement,” she said.

Cain said he would be endorsing another candidate “in the near future,” but did not indicate who it would be.

RNC Chief Vows Neutrality in Senate Primary

From HoosierAccess:

Nobody wants to stick up for Dick Lugar, it seems. The national Republican Party has bigger fish to fry (like beating Obama) than to earn the anger of the conservative grassroots by wasting money trying to keep Dick Lugar in office for a seventh term.


The Republican national chairman is staying out of the primary between Indiana Senator Richard Lugar and state Treasurer Richard Mourdock.

“I happen to believe that primaries are good,” says RNC Chairman Reince Priebus. “I think having a diverse field is great. It’s all the earned media, it’s communicating what we need to do to get our country back on track.”

Some Republicans have grumbled they cost themselves a shot at controlling the Senate last year by nominating insurgents over more experienced candidates in Delaware, Nevada and Colorado.

Priebus was Wisconsin state chairman before unseating national chairman Michael Steele earlier this year. He says hard-fought primaries won by Scott Walker and Ron Johnson for the nominations for governor and senator helped fuel their victories in November.

Priebus says the Lugar-Mourdock winner, as well as the winner of the upcoming presidential primaries, will similarly benefit from the exposure gained by having to battle for the nomination.

I happen to subscribe to a similar view as Priebus when it comes to primaries. Competition and the free market isn’t just for the private sector; it’s good to have this sort of competition in the political sphere as well.

Tea Party Lawmakers Are the Only Honest Brokers in Washington

From Big Government:

While President Obama, Senate Democrats and inside the beltway Republicans remain addicted to spending more money they do not have, a brave bloc of Congressional Members have stood up and said, “no”.

These 22 brave members of Congress bucked their party leadership and voted against Speaker Boehner’s debt ceiling bill. These lawmakers understand full well that they were elected to represent the American People and to reject the Washington D.C. wheeling and dealing that got us in this mess in the first place.

According Politico the members, who voted no on the Boehner bill were:


Justin Amash (Mich.)
Michele Bachmann (Minn.)
Chip Cravaack (Minn.)
Jason Chaffetz (Utah)
Scott Desjarlais (Tenn.)
Tom Graves (Ga.)
Tim Huelskamp (Kans.)
Steve King (Iowa)
Tim Johnson (Ill.)
Tom McClintock (Calif.)
Mick Mulvaney (S.C.)
Ron Paul (Texas)
Connie Mack (Fla.)
Jim Jordan (Ohio)
Tim Scott (S.C.)
Paul Broun (Ga.)
Tom Latham (Iowa)
Jeff Duncan (S.C.)
Trey Gowdy (S.C.)
Steve Southerland (Fla.)
Joe Walsh (Ill.)
Joe Wilson (S.C.)

These members understand that giving this President another blank check for 2 trillion dollars will not solve our problems or put the nation back on track to fiscal responsibility. Both plans coming out of the House and Senate are full of accounting gimmicks and sleight of hand tactics that have been made famous by inside the beltway politicians in both parties over the years.

Many Americans know that it is hard to find lawmakers who will go to Washington D.C. and stand on the convictions that got them elected, let alone 22 of them and even in the wake of being called extremists and hostage takers for defending their convictions and what is right.

These lawmakers only ask that Speaker Boehner insist on some level of accountable in the form of a balance budget amendment, which the President, Senate Majority Leader along with Senate Democrats have vowed to veto an debt ceiling agreement that contains a balanced budget amendment because in the end they will be held accountable and forced to use real fiscal numbers in doling out  federal government spending.

While the President and the band of Washington Insiders have tried to use fear mongering and scare tactics to silence all opposition to competing bad bills, it is nice to know that our House still does have 22 members, who have put the best interest of the nation over that of their party. These brave Men and Women should be viewed as heroes for standing against the tide of politics as usual in Washington D.C.

What Does the Tea Party Think of GOP Candidates?

The Tea Party was clearly instrumental in fueling Republicans’ tremendous success in last year’s election, and Republicans will presumably need strong Tea Party support next year as well if they are to unseat President Obama and repeal Obamacare. So it’s worth asking this question: What does the Tea Party think of the current GOP field?

Here are the respective placements of the eight current candidates (the seven who were on stage Monday night, plus Jon Huntsman) in the Tea Party Presidential Poll:

3. Michele Bachmann (73 percent success rate in head-to-head matchups)
8. Tim Pawlenty (65 percent)
12. Newt Gingrich (59 percent)
13. Herman Cain (58 percent)
15. Rick Santorum (56 percent)
19. Ron Paul (47 percent)
22. Mitt Romney (43 percent)
24. Jon Huntsman (38 percent)

The candidates basically fall into three groupings, with Bachmann by herself in first (8 percentage points ahead of anyone else); Pawlenty, Gingrich, Cain, and Santorum in the middle group; and Paul, Romney, and Huntsman (all at least 9 points behind the middle group) bringing up the rear.

The poll now includes more than 5 million responses across several months, so it’s also worth noting whether there has been any significant movement of late by any candidates who might have gotten off to a slow start. In fact, however, the candidates have moved very little since I wrote about the poll three months ago, at which time there were fewer than 2 million responses.  Bachmann has subsequently moved the most, having moved up 3 percentage points and one spot (trading places with Jim DeMint).

This minimal level of movement seems to suggest that Tea Party voters have likely been paying attention all along and haven’t dramatically changed their minds about the prospective candidates. It also suggests that they aren’t likely to change their minds dramatically at any time in the near future.

Paul Ryan (77 percent) and Chris Christie (75 percent) continue to run 1st and 2nd in the Tea Party poll. Sarah Palin is 7th (67 percent) and Rick Perry 11th (62 percent).

Why Sarah Palin Must Run in 2012

From Big Government:

One of the prevailing debates in the GOP these days (if not the only one) is whether or not Governor Sarah Palin will, or should, run for president. Not only should she, she must if the GOP has any hope of having a legitimate nominee whom everyone can support for the 2012 election.

Why? Without Palin in the race a massive segment of the GOP base—Tea Party patriots and other independent conservatives—will find themselves once again with the prospect of choosing from a manipulated field of Next-In-Line GOP establishment liberals.

And make no mistake—that is exactly who will prevail. Despite the desperate and not surprisingly shallow belief by the boys in control of the GOP, Palin cannot be replaced by another woman, or another Tea Party supporter, or another Brunette (no matter how much they think a Stalking Horse will split the Tea Party vote).  Palin’s impact is unique, significant and deep. Her influence rests on background, experience, legitimacy and most important of all—trust. These are the reasons why Palin matters, the same reasons why the GOP machine appropriately sees her, and no one else, as an existential threat to their status quo.

Despite this, if the GOP truly wants to win 2012 (of which I’m not entirely convinced, after all, I hear Jeb Bush would love to beat Obama in 2016) they should be begging Palin to enter the race. Considering their portrayal of her, why not? Look, if you can’t beat Sarah Palin what makes you think you can beat Barack Obama? What are they so afraid of? Do they so not trust the decision-making of the American people they want to make sure you have no choice at all? Those lingering questions would eventually be answered—by an Obama victory on November 6, 2012.

Read the rest at Big Government.

The Undiscovered Country – or Handicapping the GOP 2012 Field

From HoosierAccess:

If you recognize the post title, you probably think I’m either a Shakespeare junkie or a Star Trek fan, and I’m willing cop to a little of both. The sixth movie in the Star Trek franchise was on over the weekend and it takes its title from Hamlet. Shakespeare uses “the undiscovered country” as a metaphor for death, whereas in Star Trek they look at it as “the unknown.” I think Republican activists that don’t have a favorite candidate are probably feeling things are somewhere in between those two emotions right now.

Most Republicans I speak with feel like there is a legitimate chance to defeat President Obama in 2012. Most of these Republicans also feel that the candidate to defeat our president is not among the current contenders for the nomination.

Where does this leave us as a party? The irony is that it’s my sense Republicans are actually solidifying at the state and local levels. While we may have our disagreements on priorities, folks came together to deliver some fairly significant victories in the 2010 elections. Our own legislature delivered some huge victories in spite of Democrats walking out and shutting down the legislature for a few weeks. In Indiana our municipal candidate field is pretty strong and should be successful this November. It begs the question, “Why can’t we find someone to get excited about for 2012?”

Read the rest at HoosierAccess.

Excerpt: ‘How the GOP Establishment Is Co-opting the Freshman Tea Party Class’

From Big Government:

[Ed. Note: ‘How the GOP Establishment Is Co-opting the Freshman Tea Party Class,’ publishing today, is part of a ‘Voices from Tea Party’ series from Broadside Books. The author “Constance Dogood” is a tea party leader who now works on Capitol Hill for a new Member of Congress. The book, priced around $2, can be purchased here. Below are two excerpts.]

The demeanor of the NRCC hotshots in the district near the end of Mr. Freshman’s campaign didn’t help me generate a positive impression of the organization, either. They were young, ambitious, and very well dressed. They were also tin-eared and callow. When they came in, they moved in. Desks were taken, computers were hijacked, and they told all the volunteers who had worked so hard for this candidate to stop coming to the office: the professionals were here and they would handle things. They advised the candidate to stop coming into the office and only speak to staff via email. The campaign staff was shut out of strategy meetings and relegated to fetching lunch and making copies. They demanded spreadsheets and donor lists, and when we balked at sharing this information they threatened to walk out of the campaign. Our candidate, not wishing to alienate Washington even before his election, told us to give them whatever they wanted. We complied, but our conclusion was that they were a bunch of spoiled brats.



There is an odd notion among both Democratic and Republican politicians that the role of the citizenry should be limited to working on elections. Once the elections are over, the actual lawmaking—the process once described as akin to the manufacturing of sausage—is the domain of the professionals. This weird distribution of labor—and authority—is found nowhere in the Constitution.

The Establishment does not like scrutiny. The Tea Party is scrutiny personified.

The Establishment simply does not understand that the Tea Party was always as much about challenging them as it was the Democrats. Democrats are liberals and the Tea Party frequently sighs and rolls its eyes at their messes, much as you would at a toddler trying to carry a too-full cup. “They’re Democrats, what are you going to do?”

Republicans are supposed to be conservative, both fiscally and socially. The Tea Party therefore holds them to a much higher standard. Woe unto the Republican who forgets this. Reaching across the aisle will get you whacked with a tea bag. Or unelected.

Tea Party people have learned that “reaching across the aisle” is synonymous with “giving up conservative principles.” We have yet to see a “bipartisan effort” wherein the liberals gave up anything. It’s usually all the stuff they want

and one or two little things we want, and somehow that’s considered “compromise.” The Tea Party is tired of compromise. They want someone to stand up and say “No,” and mean it. The lack of cojones on the hill is remarkable, considering how many males of the species reside there.My freshman member, being determined to keep his campaign promises, and overwhelmed by all the process and the pomp, has made many missteps. He has surrounded himself with the wrong people. He has separated himself from his accountability. And while he hasn’t made any enemies, he has made no friends. He has no protection on the Hill. Should he get challenged in the primary by an Establishment protégé, he may well find himself a one-term congressman.

: ‘How the GOP Establishment Is Co-opting the Freshman Tea Party Class

Second Amendment Under Fire…From Republicans

From Big Government:

Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has filed a simple amendment to the Patriot Act protecting the rights of Americans to lawfully carry a firearm.  His Amendment would stop federal agencies from collecting gun records under the Patriot Act.  The amendment preserves two provisions of current law that protects gun owner privacy from a Patriot Act exemption.

The Paul Amendment (SA 328) states in part “no provision of this Act or an amendment made by this Act shall be construed to authorize access to firearms records in the possession of licensed under Chapter 44 of title 18 of the US Code.”  The purpose of the Amendment is to “clarify that the authority to obtain information under the US PATRIOT Act does not include the authority to obtain certain firearms records.”  Seems like a non-controversial clarification of the powers of the federal government with regard to the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.Leadership in both parties disagree and have been doing everything to block consideration of the Paul Amendment. Neil McCabe at Guns and Patriots reported yesterday on Facebook that “finessing arcane procedural tactics, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., blocked the amendment by withdrawing his own bill for Patriot Act extension for consideration and then attached it to an unrelated bill.”  McCabe further reported that Reid was overheard on the Senate floor expressing an interest in avoiding this vote.  That was yesterday, now Republicans in the Senate Leadership are actively opposing the Paul Amendment to the Patriot Act.

In an Email obtained by Big Government from a Senate Republican Leadership staffer for Senator Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) to Republican staff below titled “OPPOSE the Paul Firearm Amendment” argues for Republicans to block the Paul 2nd Amendment protection legislation:


Senator Kyl wanted your boss to be aware of a possible firearms amendment that could be voted on today as part of an amendment agreement on the PATRIOT Act.  Senator Kyl urges your boss to vote NO on the amendment (or YES on a tabling motion, if that is how the vote is structured).  It is expected that the vote will be a 60-vote threshold.

Republican leadership is opposing a pro-gun amendment in the Senate from one of their own. Gun Owners of America explains the Paul legislation in an alert:

Gun Owners of America worked with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on legislation to exempt 4473’s (the form all buyers fill out when a gun is purchased from a licensed dealer) from that statute’s broad provisions. Sen. Paul will offer that amendment this week, assuming Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is not able to block the amendment from being offered. Here’s a major concern: Assume the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) goes to the “secret court” (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or “FISA” court) and argues, without anyone else in the room, that ALL 4473’s should be seized as “business records” because they are relevant to a terrorism investigation. Can it do that? It’s certainly a big enough danger to warrant our concern and that of Sen. Paul.

Now Republicans in Leadership are trying to defeat the Paul Amendment.  The Email alert from Senator Kyl argues that there is sufficient process to protect the privacy of gun owners:

Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the government to obtain a court order for a subpoena of business records and other tangible things in the possession of third parties if the government proves to the court that there is: (1) probable cause that the target of its investigation is involved in international terrorism; and (2) the requested records are relevant to an international terrorism investigation.  In addition, to protect records of firearms sales and other sensitive records, the Patriot Act requires that any request to the court for such records must first be approved by either the Director of the FBI himself or one of two other high-level officials.  In light of these protections – judicial review, relevance to a legitimate investigation of a person who appears to be involved in terrorism, and high-level approval of any request for such information – it is extremely unlikely that this authority will ever be used to harass lawful gun owners, and, indeed, there is no evidence whatsoever that this authority has ever been abused in any way.

The problem with Senator Kyl’s position is that there is no probable cause standard to obtain for the government to obtain an order to study a citizen’s gun records in this one sided proceeding.  The Patriot Act’s purpose is to protect America from international terrorists through the use of gathering relevant information about suspected bad guys.  The problem with allowing the government to review gun records under this low standard is that it violates the 2nd Amendment rights of citizens.  The current approach fails to balance the important interests of national security versus the constitutional right to keep and bear Arms.  In another EMail provided to Big Government circulated by Senator Paul’s staff, they argue that the anti-gun Obama Administration should not be trusted with this authority to monitor the activities of gun owners.

You may have been told a request for gun records under the Patriot Act must first be approved by the Director of the FBI or other high-ranking officials, and therefore protected from abuse.  This argument does not address the fact that the standard of “relevance” is a low standard ripe for abuse, and is not much of an assurance in the face of administration officials who are hostile to the Second Amendment. Recall that the BATFE has been trying to administratively change the law regarding the collection of information on multiple purchases of rifles in certain states (if you don’t remember this, ask your LC’s, they will).

It is astounding that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) could not work out some sort of an agreement to avoid his leadership team from opposing a pro-gun Republican amendment to the Patriot Act.  A vote on the Paul Amendment on a motion to table may be held this afternoon.  It shall be interesting to see who stands up for the rights of gun owners.

“It’s a Weak Field”. No, It Is Pretty Typical

From RedState:

A lot of people are taking some comfort in my post from this morning. But there is also a lot of “the field is weak” comments.

Let’s review, shall we? Let’s go back to 1964, which was arguably the first year of the modern campaign era. Then we’ll work our way forward with those open years or years when the GOP was the out of power party.

In 1964 we had:
Hiram Fong of Hawaii
Barry Goldwater of Arizona
Walter Henry Judd of Maryland
Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. of Massachusetts
Nelson Rockefeller of New York
George Romney of Michigan
William Scranton of Pennsylania
Margaret Chase Smith of Maine
Harold Stassen of Minnesota

In 1968 we had:
Frank Carlson of Kansas
Clifford Case of New Jersey
John Lindsay of New York
Richard Nixon, then of New York
Ronald Reagan of California
Jim Rhodes of Ohio
George Romney of Michigan
Nelson Rockefeller of New York
Winthrop Rockefeller of Arkansas
Harold Stassen of Minnesota
John Volpe of Massachusetts

In 1980 we had:
John Anderson of Illinois
Howard Baker of Tennessee
George H. W. Bush of Texas
John Connally of Texas
Phil Crane of Illinois
Bob Dole of Kansas
Larry Pressler of South Dakota
Ronald Reagan of California
Harold Stassen of Pennsylvania
Lowell Weicker of Connecticut

In 1988 we had:
George H. W. Bush of Texas
Bob Dole of Kansas
Pierre S. du Pont, IV of Delaware
Alexander Haig of Pennsylvania
Jack Kemp of New York
Paul Laxalt of Nevada
Harold Stassen of Minnesota
Pat Robertson of Virginia

In 1996 we had:
Lamar Alexander of Tennessee
Pat Buchanan of Virginia
Bob Dole of Kansas
Robert K. Dornan of California
Steve Forbes of New York
Phil Gramm of Texas
Alan Keyes of Maryland
Richard Lugar of Indiana
Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania
Morry Taylor of Ohio
Pete Wilson of California

In 2000, we had:
Lamar Alexander of Tennessee
Gary Bauer of Kentucky
Pat Buchanana of Virginia
George W. Bush of Texas
Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina
Steve Forbes of New York
Orrin Hatch of Utah
John Kasich of Ohio
Alan Keyes of Maryland
John McCain of Arizona
Dan Qualye of Indiana
Bob Smith of New Hampshire

In 2008, we had:
Sam Brownback of Kansas
Mike Huckabee of Arkansas
Jim Gilmore of Virginia
Rudy Giuliani of New York
Duncan Hunter of California
Alan Keyes of Maryland
John McCain of Arizona
Mitt Romney of Massachusetts
Ron Paul of Texas
Tom Tancredo of Colorado
Fred Thompson of Tennessee
Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin

This year so far we have:
Michele Bachmann of Minnesota
Herman Cain of Georgia
Newt Gingrich of Georgia
Jon Huntsman of Utah
Gary Johnson of New Mexico
Ron Paul of Texas
Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota
Mitt Romney of Massachusetts
Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania

Some of them dropped out before the primaries, some after, and some garnered votes at the convention without doing much. But looking at the field, 2012 doesn’t seem more or less weak than most of the others.

I’d argue that 1964 to 1980 showed the rise of conservatives and after 1980 everyone largely ceded the field of ideas to conservatives. 30 years later, some Republicans wavering, but by and large the candidates still pay homage to Reagan. If anything, the GOP field right now is a reflect of our past successes and wins.

Of the candidates listed, I think the candidate who can tap into the spirit of one year I didn’t mention is the guy who will be the nominee — Reagan ‘76. He defied the party structure and wound up losing the nomination that year. But then the tea party movement didn’t exist back them. Whoever stands up as a credible outside voice of conservatism is going to go far. Conversely, those too tied to the “establishment”, whatever one might view it to be, will be hurt.

But don’t tell me it is a weak field. It’s a pretty typical field for the GOP.


Republicans Will Steal the 2012 Election

From National Review:

Expect to hear that claim in the run-up to the election. Similar claims were made before the 2000, 2004, and 2008 elections.

During the 2000 presidential election, activists claimed that dogs and hoses were used to keep black voters from the polls in Florida. Claims that thousands of black voters were disfranchised, harassed and intimidated ran rampant. As I mentioned yesterday, the U.S.Commission on Civil Rights conducted a six-month investigation of the charges and found absolutely no evidence of systematic disfranchisement of black voters. The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice also found no credible evidence that any Floridians were intentionally denied the right to vote.

These findings failed to dispel the myth of massive disfranchisement that caused Al Gore the election. Politicians and activists persisted in circulating outlandish stories of nefarious Republican schemes to steal votes, stories that became more numerous and absurd during the months preceding the November 2004 election. Speaking before predominantly black audiences, John Kerry repeatedly suggested that a million black votes were stolen in 2000. Rep. Bernice Johnson (D., Texas) asserted that George W. Bush lost the popular vote in Florida, despite the fact that every official count showed that Bush clearly won. Nonetheless, in July 2004, Johnson led a group of a dozen congressmen who requested that then U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan provide U.N. election observers to monitor the 2004 election to prevent a repeat of “the nightmare of the 2000 presidential election.”

As the November 2004 election drew near, the mythologists issued dire warnings of Election Day calamities. When polls gradually made it clear that Ohio would be 2004′s ground zero, thousands of election lawyers and observers swarmed to the state. The mythologists railed against inevitable black voter suppression and intimidation. The media braced for a repeat in Ohio of the narrow popular vote margin and recount circus that occurred in Florida 2000.

But then, to the mythologists’ chagrin, Bush defeated Kerry in Ohio by 119,000 votes. The army of lawyers and observers reported no major problems. The predicted calamities failed to materialize: no stolen votes; no harassment and intimidation; no widespread confusion.

Since the U.S.Commission on Civil Rights is specifically charged with investigating deprivations of voting rights, its staff had been instructed to monitor the election and report back to the commission at its meeting the week after the election. The commission dispatched monitors to battleground locations. The staff reported . . . absolutely nothing.

The mythologists were undaunted. When initial claims of disappearing votes, voter intimidation and rigged “Republican” election machines proved false, they tried to make the most of the less titillating claims that long lines, inadequate voting machines and partisan election officials disfranchised voters.Senator Barbara Boxer asserted that 5,000 to 10,000 black voters in Columbus had abandoned long voting lines out of sheer frustration. Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) admonished that we should be as worried about voter disfranchisement in our country as in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Rep. Maxine Waters said she was “ashamed to say” that Ohio’s top election official,  then Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, is black.

If there was a conspiracy to disfranchise Ohio voters, black or white, its execution was profoundly inept. Ohio voter turnout increased from 4.9 million in 2000 to 5.5 million in 2004. Estimated black voter turnout alone rose by 25 percent. The claims of disfranchisement proved false.

But the myth of a stolen election persisted. In 2008, activists again warned that Republicans would attempt to steal the election. But unlike the aftermaths to the 2000 and 2004 elections, after Barack Obama won on election night the claims of a stolen election evaporated. No conspiracy theories circulated. No media obsession with voter disfranchisement.

Now we’re only a year and a half from another presidential election. The claims of impending disfranchisement are sure to multiply.

God Bless America

Find Us On Facebook!

Hot Topics

Random Quote

Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason. — Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard’s Almanack, 1735

Today’s Events


Upcoming Elections

  • No dates present