Get Adobe Flash player

POTUS 2012

So, this is how Liberty dies – with thunderous applause.

From South Florida 9-12:

My husband Doug wrote this and I wanted to share…


“…and whether I have EARNED your vote or not: I have heard you. I have *LISTENED* to you…”

“I have never been more HOPEFUL, about America…”

“We are not as divided as the pundits would suggest…”

“We are, and forever SHALL BE, the United States of America!!!!”

Ladies & gentlemen, fellow Americans – the President of the United States: BARACK OBAMA.


I have sat quietly stunned for over an hour, trying to accept the meaning of this democratic moment. I can only think of Senator Padme Amidala’s pained (if prescient) observation, in “Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge Of The Sith”, after Palpatine declares himself “Emperor” over the (former) Republic…




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.

2012 Candidates, Regardless of Background, Must Understand and Apply America’s Foundational Laws

From Big Government:

Within our own country, the Founders and Framers understood that there has to be a balance between individual rights and the rights of the community. They were under no illusions that in a country this large that everyone could hold the same beliefs and goals. They wanted to create a place where, to the largest extent possible, people could be free without imposing on others. You could say their end goal was freedom. In creating the U.S. Constitution, they created a document that would maximize freedom and minimize conflict. For example, rather than elevate one religion over others by sponsoring it by the state, they included the First Amendment, which reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

What is meant by this is that the FEDERAL government will not become involved. They knew better than to tell the states to what level they become involved in religion or whether or not the states should even sponsor any particular religious practice. By the same token, if one religion imposed its beliefs on others, this would be abridging the free exercise of a faith and that would not be acceptable. Remember, the idea is to maximize freedom and minimize conflict.

The US Constitution was based on the philosophy of government laid out in the Declaration of Independence, which declares:

“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.”

The U.S. Constitution was established to protect these truths and it was agreed to by the citizens of this country as explained in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Some practices today are contrary to such truths and contrary to the U.S. Constitution — practices such as justices in our court system allowing for Shariah law to supersede what is guaranteed to all citizens under our own system of government, allowing precedents established by international law to influence decisions made by our Supreme Court (though it could be argued that the roots our legal practices come from Great Britain and therefore any practices which were established before the ratification of our U.S. Constitution can be considered for proper context), introducing belief systems into our public education system that undermine the values taught at home and require students to accept what may be unacceptable based on their religious faith, and narrowing our world views to create one people not based on individual freedom but based on a socialist-type system where property can be taken from one person and redistributed to another. Sadly, there seems to be a large segment of the population that doesn’t understand the fundamental law of this country or believes it to be outdated, irrelevant, or that the U.S. Constitution is a living document and can be changed. They don’t believe it is updated by amendments or ratifying conventions but through precedent based on court decisions, through law made by bureaucrats unanswerable to the people, and those who do not question the lack of standing of our citizenry when bringing questions of constitutionality before the federal courts.

When people do not understand the value of what they have — when they don’t understand the domino effect of changes made lightly or quickly, become complacent and allow others to think for them, or abdicate their responsibility to vote — this is when our country will fall. The Framers understood that when those who are ruling lose touch with the citizens they represent, when they do not believe themselves governed by the same law, we have tyranny. The citizens of this country have to ask themselves, do we have a representative government or are we living under tyranny?

The election of 2012 gives us the opportunity to elect candidates to office who understand federalism, the philosophy of this country, how law is to be made, how law is to be interpreted, and the limited role of government in our lives. To be a responsible citizenry, each and every one of us must make sure that our votes are counted and that we vote to maximize freedom and minimize conflict. When going into a voting booth, it makes no difference whether a candidate believes in Mormonism or is an atheist if that person’s world view includes perspective and tolerance and if the end goal of that person’s campaign is to maximize freedom and minimize conflict.

Ask yourself, what was the end goal for the Founders, the Framers, and the citizenry? Are we forming a more perfect union? Do we understand what we stand for? Do we understand why? Do we understand the alternative? What is the end game? How will we get there?

Why John Ziegler is Wrong About Sarah Palin’s Electability

From Big Government:

After two of the best months a potential presidential candidate could possibly have, the Daily Caller lobbed a grenade at the Palin Camp Sunday night in the form of a John Ziegler piece titled: “The Sarah Palin I Know.” The news here is that Ziegler — a columnist, documentary filmmaker, and radio talk show host who’s probably most famous for being one of Governor Palin’s chief defenders, has come out very publicly to proclaim that she’s not only incapable of defeating Barack Obama in 2012, but also that any potential candidacy on her part could hurt those — like Tim Pawlenty — who are capable of defeating Obama.

In his closing sentence, Ziegler sums up his own piece perfectly:

If Sarah Palin still is the person I thought I knew, then she will do what is best for her cause and country by sitting this one out.

Rather than risk misquoting or taking Ziegler out of context, in the best good-faith effort I can summon, I’m going  to quote directly the substance of the arguments Ziegler makes to back up his bombshell claims. I do, however, encourage you to read the full piece.

1. The MSM Destroyed Palin’s Chance to Beat Obama in 2012

Ziegler: Before I left, I felt I had to give the governor at least one piece of advice. After all, I know how politicians work. They surround themselves with yes-people. No one dares speak up. I figured I’d never get another opportunity like this again, so, with the very best of intentions, I told her: “You have to know, you can’t beat Obama in 2012. The media won’t let you. They won’t let him lose and the narrative about you is too negative to correct in three-and-a-half years.”

The main reason I believe Ziegler is falling into the media’s trap, is based mainly on recent polls from crucial swing states that show Governor Palin well within striking distance of Barack Obama. Not only is Obama unable to hit 50% (bad news for any incumbent), but Palin isn’t even an announced candidate and yet she’s polling within the margin of error.

Read the rest at Big Government.

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.

Herman Cain: Homosexuality Is a ‘Sin’ and a ‘Choice’

From The Blaze:

Presidential contender and former Godfather’s Pizza executive Herman Cain was clear and concise when addressing his views on homosexuality. TMP has more:

Fresh off his keynote speech at the Faith And Freedom Conference in Washington last weekend, Herman Cain took a socially conservative hard-line stance on sexual orientation in an interview with CBS News.

“I believe homosexuality is a sin because I’m a Bible-believing Christian, I believe it’s a sin,” Cain said, adding, “I believe it is a choice.”

On the flip side, earlier this week we covered former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and his cautiousness when discussing his faith and the Mormon Church’s stance on gay marriage and homosexuality.

You can watch Cain’s comments in the CBS News clip below:

Cain: If Banks Struggle, ‘Let Them Fail’

From National Review:

Herman Cain, the former chief executive of Godfather’s Pizza, says that if were president, and major American banks were in financial trouble, he would “let them fail.”

Cain, who initially supported the Troubled Assets Relief Program in October 2008, tells NRO that his position on bank bailouts has evolved. “We were in this financial meltdown like I had never seen before in my business career,” he explains. “I don’t think the typical American understood just how dangerous that was, not only for this country, but for the world.”

“The concept of the government providing assistance to the banking system, to help them get their act back together, I did support,” Cain says. “What I didn’t support was how they implemented it, how they carried it out.”

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.

Government According to President Palin

From Big Government:

In just a bit over two years, Barack Obama has exponentially expanded the size of the federal government and the number of Americans dependent upon it for their well being. He has taken over our healthcare system, two of our largest automobile manufacturers, and overseen spending that has placed our national debt at over $14,000,000,000,000. Gas prices are up sharply – more than 100% increase in per-gallon-price since Obama took office – yet his solution to such prices is characterized by a continued reliance on OPEC, coupled with a de jure ban on offshore drilling and a de facto ban on the expansion of onshore drilling (in places like the western states and Alaska).  Unemployment is at 9%, illegal immigrants are largely getting a pass, the housing slump continues, and inalienable rights are quietly being attacked “under the radar.”

At times like this, when the American people feel their wallets and bank accounts squeezed more tightly at every turn, it’s only natural to wonder how things might be different if we were to take the reins of power out of Obama’s hands in 2012 and put them in the hands of someone else.

And what if that ”someone else” was Sarah Palin?

In other words, what would it be like to live under government according to President Palin?

For starters, there would be a vast reduction in the size of government instead of an exponential growth of the same: the record spending spree would stop. Palin has said repeatedly that she supports “cutting taxes and shrinking government,” that we need to “go back to what Reagan did in the early 80s, [and] stay committed to those common sense free market principles that work.” As she said during her speech in India in March of this year: “We need job growth. And that won’t come from ‘top-down government planning’…[but] from the ‘Free Market Ingenuity’ of ordinary American entrepreneurs.”

Concerning our energy quandaries, is there anyone who touted “Drill Here, Drill Now” louder than Palin? And she understands that the reasons behind Obama’s refusal to drill boil down to politics. As she told Rush Limbaugh in the wake of Vice President Joe Biden’s claim that “drill here, drill now” was too simplistic: “It’s not that complicated, it’s political.”

Like so many Americans, Palin finds it simply unacceptable that, “we’re not tapping into the abundant domestic supplies that God created right under foot on American soil and under our waters.”

FYI – I know this all sounds like common sense, and it is common sense, which is why the Republican establishment fears Palin so much. Common sense is an anathema to political elites in both parties because it removes the need for endless political discussion (and grandstanding) and gets right to the heart of the matter. It lets Palin explain the justification for stronger border security with simple  statements like, “Illegal immigrants are called illegal for a reason.” And it allows her to sum up her views on the War on Terror by saying, “We win, they lose.”

I’m not even going to bother explaining how different Palin’s approach to gun rights would be, compared to Obama’s. But I will say that this is one of the greatest areas of differentiation that exists between the two. (And I don’t know if you’ve ever thought about it, but whereas Palin goes out into Alaska’s wilds to track and shoot Caribou, Obama goes to Martha’s Vineyard and wears a helmet to peddle his bicycle around in the grass.)

In concluding, let me sum all this up by saying government according to President Palin would be far less intrusive and much, much smaller. Taxes would be lower, borders would be stronger, and more and more of the oil required to fuel our economy would come from here, rather than OPEC.

Moreover, I betcha Palin wouldn’t have had to “sleep on it” before giving a SEAL team the green light to kill a first class scum bag like Osama bin Laden.

Mitt Romney Still Loves His Ethanol, Especially in Iowa

From RedState:

Say anything you want about Mitt Romney, but at least he isn’t flip flopping this time around.  Instead of disavowing his support for Romneycare, he fully embraced the monstrosity, albeit on a state level.  Now, amidst the growing disquiet over the outrageous ethanol subsidies, and following Tim Pawlenty’s mea culpa on the issue, Mitt Romney is doubling down on his support for this odious subsidy.  Jonathan Weisman of the Wall Street Journal reports:

It was an odd setting for a policy pronouncement, but on the sidewalk outside the Historical Building here, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney embraced ethanol subsidies. It came just days after and blocks from where his rival for the Republican presidential nomination, Tim Pawlenty, said the subsidies should be phased out.

“I support the subsidy of ethanol,” he told an Iowa voter. “I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.” Iowa leads the nation in the production of corn, a main source of  ethanol.

Iowa is certainly the leader in fleecing the rest of the nation with their corn welfare.  Romney definitely gets points for honesty and for his cognizance of the political climate in Iowa.  However, he would be better suited to take his corn show on the road and embark on challenging Barack Obama for the Democrat nomination.  That way, his political calculations would coincide with the policies that he is seeking to represent.


Ethanol subsidies are an anathema to every principle that conservatives embrace. These bailouts for the rich are price-hiking market-distorting government interventions that benefit few at the expense of everyone else.  At a time when we are trying to offer the public an intellectual and moral distinction between the pro-jobs pro-consumer nature of the free market versus the regressive and insidious policies of bailouts and corporate cronyism, Mitt Romney is muddling the battlefield with pale pastels.  At a time when some of those very subsidies are fueling high energy and food prices and are impelling trickle-down unemployment, Romney wants to preclude one of our most effective lines of attack against Obama.

The ethanol industry is unique in that it is insulated from the free market by government imposed subsidies, mandates, and tariffs.  The mandates are killing our cars and the tariffs are blocking the use of more efficient sugar-based ethanol from Brazil.  Mitt Romney might want to divulge to the public if he is in favor of the mandates and tariffs as well.  After all, the same demographic in Iowa that would support the subsidies, would support the other two sacred stools of ethanol.

It would be interesting to hear how the Republican “frontrunner” squares his conservatism with a policy that is an utter imprecation to everything conservatives have fought for.  And last time I checked, the ethanol policies were promulgated primarily from the federal government.

You can’t use the federalism argument to ameliorate every liberal policy, can you?

God Bless America

Find Us On Facebook!

Hot Topics

Random Quote

Give me liberty or give me death. — Patrick Henry

Today’s Events


Upcoming Elections

  • No dates present