JOIN THE HOPE & CHANGE STICKY-NOTE CAMPAIGN

As we near the Nov-2012 election, more and more Americans are realizing how crucial it is. Help Americans join the crusade to get out the vote by sending a reminder: How's That "Hope & Change" Working for You? sticky notes. Bring your own pad with your written message, or pick up some pre-printed pads at Patriot Depot, join the Facebook campaign.

Remind them
At the Pump (gas prices were $1.89 when Obama took office)
At the Grocery Store (shelves are a good spot, especially cereal)
At the Doctor's Office (where Obamacare is kicking in)
In Restrooms (the towel dispense is nice and suttle)
On Shopping Carts
On ATM machines (right where you pull out your money)
At Flea Markets (where we have to sell our possessions to survive)
At Fast Food Drive Throughs (on the order screen by the price)
On Bulletin Boards (in markets and local restaurants)
At the Car Wash
In the Laundrymat

We've got to call attention to the failure of the Obama Administration, and make them accountable for these higher prices and this no-growth economy. These are an inexpensive way to spread the word of Obama's failure while having fun at the same time, and we've all got some. Place them where it hurts the most; next to the price of food or beside the price of gas, not obstructing it.

Inflation is hurting America and it not being reported because they have change the template. How can you not include gas and food? We pay for it every day, and it should be a constant reminder of why Obama cannot have another four years. And those four years would be completely un-tethered. Both Barack Obama and Joe Biden have talked of ruling without the consent of Congress, and that should scare the daylights out of every red-blooded American.

If you feel comfortable, take a photo of it and upload it on your Facebook, or on the Facebook page of "How's That Hope & Change Working for You Campaign?", or post it here. Remember to be respectful, not destructive, respect property rights. We are the silent majority, respecting every individual's right for freedom and the opportunity to express our beliefs.

God bless America

2nd ANNUAL TAX DAY TEA PARTY RALLY, SANTA CRUZ, CA

As the 2012 elections draw closer, and over 2 years of the intrusive Obama administration in our lives, the 2nd annual Tax Day Tea Parties were celebrated across the country.  The main stream media continues to mininize the Tea Party movement, but it has become more and more prevelant on the lips of politicians, including the fearless leader.

One of the most thrilling Tea Party rallys had to be the one at the Capitol in Madison, Wisconsin, with guest speaker Sarah Palin. Another Tax Day Tea Party rally in Washington DC heralded 4 prospective Republican presidential candidates -- so, We've Come a Long Way, Baby!

Now is the time for all good tea partiers to come to the aid of their country.  Obama, never having really left campaign mode, has ramped up his attack and laid out his platform for the next gruesome 18 months.  And attack he will, which makes it all the more critical for a strong Republican candidate to step forward.  Personally, I don't see one right now, but am praying that the closer we get to the election, the urgency of the situation will bring forth an unexpected warrior, who will debate the issues, ignore the name calling, and take on Obama toe to toe.  Obama will crumble like dried bread.

Since his great immaculation, Obama has pushed the envelope on endless occasions, but his Wednesday campaign speech in response to Paul Ryan (ever in his head now) takes the cake.  He invited the author of probably the best and most honest budget in history, Paul Ryan, along with 2 of Ryan's colleagues, to hear his speech.  Obama then proceeded to insult Congressman Ryan, and lambast Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" budget, showing the yellow streak that runs down the middle of this Commander in Chief's back.

Yes, Obama has pushed the envelope a little too far this time, and even Rush Limbaugh had enough, making an 'over-the-plate' observation:

"The Republicans need to take Barack Hussein Obama, throw his positions right back at him, unravel his BS and advance America's core principles. That's what made us great.**

Obama's not this cool, calm, collected guy. He's just... Folks, he's not a good guy. He's a mean, vindictive little guy. He's very cold."

**This should be the Republican Party's platform!

One of the best brains out there, Victor Davis Hanson writes in Pajama's Media about the maladies of Barack Hussein Obama.

PATIENT OBAMA
by Victor Davis Hanson - April 18, 2011

Last week the president gave a speech on the deficit, rightly trying to convince Americans that it is now beyond unsustainable. Yet his theme was that the Republicans’ attempts to reduce it were cold-hearted, endangering the most vulnerable among us, such as those with Down’s Syndrome, while protecting the proverbial “rich” from commensurate sacrifice. Let us, then, look at Obama, and the context of his speech, as a doctor might a patient.

Symptoms of the Illness
a) Obama just introduced a $3.5 trillion dollar budget with a $1.6 annual deficit — both record numbers. (If worried about debt, why then run up more record debt, if not by design to ensure higher taxes and larger deficit-run government?)
b) Obama ignored so far all the recommendations of his own blue-chip debt committee. (Why appoint an honorific committee that is to be humiliated?)
c) Obama demonized his opponents in precisely the manner that he had earlier warned against, both in his calls for a new civility following the Giffords shooting, and in promising not to demagogue cuts to entitlements in cheap partisan fashion. (Does his entire audience suffer from amnesia?)
d) Obama wants now to raise taxes on the “rich,” though right after the elections he had agreed that these hikes were a bad idea in such uncertain times. (An unwise idea in December is a needed one in April?)
e) Obama warns against shutting down the government in protest of unsustainable debt, though that is precisely what he voted for as a senator in 2006, when the deficit was about 1/5 of what it is now. (A Senator Obama would have been a President Obama’s worst nightmare?)
f) Obama said that neither he nor Warren Buffett needed another tax cut, although Buffett is the second richest man in America, who pays less a percentage of his income than most of those who make above the dreaded $250,000 — and Barack Obama is the country’s most privileged American who pays for virtually none of his own expenses. (The average optometrist really earns like Buffett and has no expenses like Obama?)
g) Obama still talks about ObamaCare, but has given 1,000 exemptions from it, often to those interests who were most for it. (If he exempted the entire state of Maine, could he just do the same for the other 49 and call it a victory?)

Diagnosis of the Malady
a) An erratic, unengaged president is bored with the work part of the job, enjoying far more the golf, attention, influence, and perks (despite not getting a “cool” phone system with a drop-down screen in the Oval Office), and so he simply sleepwalks through his speeches, oblivious to the contradictions he presents. (Who cares if his Libyan misadventure contradicts almost everything he said from 2002-10, since he was already on to Rio and praising Brazil for drilling off-shore in a manner we never would. Life is short, but the job cool.) OR

b) The president is cynical and says whatever he wishes without worry of consequences, because based on the past abyss between laurels and achievement (Harvard Law Review, offer of Chicago Law School tenure, record in the Senate, Nobel Prize, etc.), he feels exempt from scrutiny and audit. Indeed, he expects that he can always “hope and change” or “millions of green jobs” his way out of any rare, nit-picking journalistic follow-up. (A journalist will always declare him a “god” even if speech A nullifies speech B a day later). OR

c) The president says, like most, what he must to be elected and now reelected; Guantanamo, renditions, Iraq, tribunals, Predators, preventative detention, public campaign financing, revolving door politics, earmarks, lobbyists, etc. — these are all just “constructs” without real absolute truth. They are bad or good, depending on the political calculus at any given time — a consideration that changes sometimes hourly. So Obama seems to have discovered that what he said to get elected, or even said two weeks ago, he need not say today again or tomorrow. Polls change, so do talking points. (He also knows that 50% of the citizenry receive some sort of government money; almost 50% pay no income tax; and in February more money was redistributed than collected by the Treasury. Therefore most Americans will stick by him whatever he says — as long as he keeps the money flowing.) OR

d) The president is Machiavellian and, amid his apparent confusion and misdirection, has actually quite adroitly moved the country far to the left since 2009. While his growing number of critics bemoan his inconsistency, disingenuousness, ill-preparedness, contradictions, and lack of persistence, Obama looks only to the fact that the nation in the last 30 months has come to look more like his vision than that of his opponents. (The Left may groan, but they grasp that Obama’s youth, mixed ancestry, charisma, and untraditional candidacy are rare gifts that can advance a once unpopular agenda in a way a McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, or Kerry never could.)

Prognosis
None of this symptomology is mutually exclusive, and, in fact, these indications are more likely complementary. Indeed, the president’s speech is a good harbinger of the campaign to come. Contradictions mean nothing. Quite blatant reversals are irrelevant. For Obama to win, our patient simply counts on three therapies in 2012.

1) All recessions at some point get a little better. The world is now in a so-so recovery. We have printed $5 trillion since Obama was inaugurated. For a short period, say until the end of 2012, such “stimulus” will have a stimulatory, inflationary effect. An upswing comes now; the perfect storm of stagflationary hyper-high-prices, chronic unemployment above 8%, and spiraling interest rates may not take full effect until after the election.

2) The deficit is indeed unsustainable, and premise #1 is, in fact, endangered by it. So the Republicans will have to deal with it, and thus must bear the charge that they cut Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, while fighting for the Bush “tax cuts.” If the Republicans want to “balance the budgets on the backs of the poor,” then Obama has no choice but to go to the barricades and stop that Dickensian ruthlessness. So propose a $1.6 deficit, ignore the debt commission, and let the Republicans play Scrooge to his Bob Cratchit.

3) The electorate is not as it was when it finally sickened of Jimmy Carter in August 1980. Far more are on public assistance, unemployment, Social Security, food stamps, etc., or work for thousands of new state and federal bureaus. There are millions more illegal aliens that have become citizens since the late 1970s. And the voting rolls have expanded exponentially among “nontraditional” voters. Thus, the political calculus about which pundits and talking-heads debate is not always what half the electorate worries about. The national debt, the annual deficit, the problems with ObamaCare, the tax code — all that matters very little. The key question for millions of voters in 2012 will be simply who ensures that my check arrives unchanged or augmented, and who either stops or reduces it.

File Closed
Patient Obama presents us with multifaceted, but now chronic and well-recognized symptoms. They reflect a variety of maladies that nevertheless form an identifiable syndrome. There is no real therapy to be recommended since the illness will have to run its course, with a prognosis that remains uncertain until it resolves one way or another in about two years — or in late 2012.


Read more incredible Victor Davis Hanson here.

WILL THE REAL NEWT GINGRICH PLEASE STAND UP?

Here we go again. Newt Gingrich? Too many choices for the Republican ticket, and too many old and worn out ones at that, with not enough declared new faces. RINO Romney, who endorsed Mary Bono Mack, who voted FOR Cap & Trade, or Huckabee, who is more concerned with "governing" than standing on principle, and pardons criminals who go back to a life of crime -- one killing four police officers. That being said, I'm old enough to remember the waffling of Newt Gingrich on core issues. Not as bad as The Chosen One, but bad enough.

Back during early 2008 (pre the Tea Party Movement, I might add), it was Newt Gingrich who said "The Reagan era is over. The George W. Bush era is over. We're at a point in time when we're about to start redefining -- as a number of people started talking about, starting to redefine -- the nature of the Republican Party, in response to what the country needs."

Now that Newt has seen where the wind is blowing (sometime after the infamous summer of 2009, and the shellacking he got for endorsing Dede Scozzafava in the NY-23 special election over the Tea Party favorite Doug Hoffman), he has radically changed his tune. Sound familiar?

But, that's not the worst of it. Back during his reign in the House of Representatives, under his Contract for America, he made so made about turns, it was unrecognizable. He has cozied up with some of the left's most popular: Al "race baiting" Sharpton, Nancy "Stretch" Pelosi, Al "Global Warming" Gore, cozying up with Hillary[Care] Clinton, and playing goverment spending footsie with the other Clinton in the 1990s.

Here's a good one, from Devvy Kidd "Mr. Gingrich struts around like he's Thomas Jefferson. Nothing could be farther from the truth."

Another informative reminder is the JBS Exposé "The Real Newt Gingrich".

Newt's numbers are creeping up -- No thank you. I keep looking for that fresh blood, kinda Reaganesque. Do we really need another Jeckle-Hyde president? I think not.

WHY LIBERALS HATE THE CONSTITUTION

Nothing irritates the Left more than being caught in a lie.  Reading the Consitutiton in the opening session of the 112th Congress was nothing less than a revelation of how far it has been abused, and why the Left doth protest too much.  It's something that should be done before every new session.

After the shellacking Obama received, and his desire for another term, he has cooled his jets with his new-found moderation.  Can he win?  Youbetcha.  Are we just one-quarter through a two term Obama presidency?  Perish the thought, but Clinton did it, with the help of conservative Dick Morris, and Obama now has Chicago's Bill Daley to do the same.

As Obama has done for the past two years, the next two will be an endless barrage of campaign rhetoric, altering his image in the process, and making it even more difficult to bear.  But conservatives can hold his feet to the fire by making him accountable for his true hard left dogmatism.  If the Republican Party caves to ridiculous pressures such as 'moderation', meeting in the middle with Obama, 'civility', accusations of 'racism', and everything else the Left throws at conservatives, Obama will win, and we will have six more years of him -- at least!

Remembering Reagan, if the GOP sticks to its conservative values, Obama can be beat.  Don't let him hide behind the podium.  Press him on all his pet policies such as Obamacare, press him on reducing [and balancing] the budget, on card check unionization, on carbon tax, on de-regulating small banks, on the FCC controlling talk radio and the internet.  Make him talk about it.  Eventually, his ego won't be able to resist it.

The lame-duck session was not a good sign, but this month the GOP has taken promising steps, including their $2.5 Trillion dollar spending cut proposal.  They need to keep the pressure on, and use this as leverage against the upcoming debt increase.  Force Obama to sign the spending cut, or make him defend why he needs to keep increased spending.  Wonder how centrist that will sound.

If Republicans are to win in 2012, they must force Obama to defend his policies and his actions for the past two years, rather than hide behind the phony moderate he has been playing since his shellacking and the about-face he took on the Bush tax rates.  He would like nothing more than to have the voting public forget his past progressivism of the last two years.  His actions must remain in the forefront in 2011 and 2012, the actions that cost his Party the election last November.  We can never forget.  Remember Pelosi?  Remember Reid?  Remember the backdoor deals behind locked doors?  Remember the name calling of tea partiers?

Who creates a climate of hate? Liberals would have you believe they are the party of the middle class, when history has shown over and over again how they repress and stifle freedoms. From voting against the Civil Rights Movement,to Woodrow Wilson's well hidden demonic rule, and the myth of FDR.

This excellent piece by Frank J. Fleming in Pajamas Media, while laced with humor, is shocking in its truth. Liberalism is truly a mental disorder, and I, for one, keep a pocket Constitution on me at all times.

Why Liberals Hate the Constitution
No matter how much liberals try to mystify the Constitution and obscure its meaning, hearing the actual text of the document quickly destroys that fiction.
by Frank J. Fleming - January 13, 2011

Since there are many more conservatives than liberals, and conservatives have so many guns, people often wonder why conservatives don’t just round up all the liberals and ship them to Antarctica to be forced to mine for jewels and gold. Well, there is a very good reason for that: by a strict constructionist interpretation of the American Constitution, there is no support for being able to deport liberals to a mining camp.

Now, if conservatives were a bit more flexible with their view of the Constitution, they would say things like, “Well, we have to remember it’s a living document, and the Founding Fathers hadn’t even thought of the threat of hippies running around free when they wrote it.” And then they’d look to the Commerce Clause and say, “Well, keeping liberals from meddling in America and forcing them do something useful like mining sure would help the economy, so it’s within the government’s power.” And then it’d just be a manner of scheduling all the boats to get liberals to Antarctica.

But that would violate the spirit of the Constitution since, by plain English interpretations of the government’s powers, we can’t forcefully ship liberals to Antarctica no matter how much people may think that would help the country. And that’s the point of the Constitution: people are constantly changing their ideas of what is good and bad, but the Constitution is much harder to change. It puts limits on what the government can do, and those limits can only be changed when huge majorities agree to it through the amendment process. And even after ObamaCare, there inexplicably isn’t enough support for a “Liberals Are to Be Sent to Mines in Antarctica” amendment.

After the hysterical way liberals reacted to the reading of the Constitution by Republicans to open Congress, with Democrats objecting to it, left-wing newspaper editorials denouncing it, and liberals online freaking out over it, no reasonable person would argue that liberals don’t hate the Constitution, but the reasons why aren’t as obvious. So the question becomes, why do liberals hate the Constitution so much — especially when it’s the only thing protecting them from freezing to death with pickaxes in their hands?

We are all aware that liberals want the Constitution to be a living document, like if Geppetto wanted Pinocchio to become a real boy so it would be easier to strangle him to death. They want it living so they can render its words meaningless. To them, the Constitution is this cryptic document only the most educated Ivy Leaguers are able to interpret. Recently, the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein even stated that “the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago.” And then we have all these court decisions — much longer than the document itself – that find all these hidden rights not mentioned in the Constitution and explain away the ones that are clearly stated. And don’t argue with liberals on the subject, because they’re really smart and the only ones able to understand what they’re talking about.

Thus the freakout over the Constitution being read aloud. No matter how much liberals try to mystify the Constitution and obscure its meaning, hearing the actual text of the document quickly destroys that fiction. It almost reads like a direct condemnation of all the government expansion and power grabs liberals have been up to lately. You can’t hear its words without imagining the ghost of George Washington punching hippies. So you can see why they’d rather it not be brought to the public’s attention.

A big way gun rights proponents won their war was by putting the text of the 2nd Amendment everywhere. While “scholars” liked to pretend there was some debate on whether there is an individual right to bear arms, there wasn’t among the general public because anyone literate could read the amendment and quickly identify that the only operative part is “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Words mean things to most people, so asking the average American whether there is a right to bear arms is like asking what two plus two equals. Ask a liberal judge, though, and he’ll say, “Two and two of what? And ‘equals’ can mean so many things. It’s a very complicated question.” So when people see the long, rambling reasons from someone like Justice Breyer on why the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean what it says versus the simple language of the Constitution, they start to realize they’d be much better served by having a twelve-year-old with basic reading comprehension as a justice.

The Constitution meaning what it says is only part of the problem liberals have with it, though. In the Constitution are the means to change the Constitution, and liberals are perfectly capable of proposing amendments to force people to buy health care or to get haters like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck off the air. Of course, they’d need to get a huge majority of the country to go along with them. And there is the problem. If the Constitution puts strict limits on government power and the only way for liberals to increase that power is to get a huge majority of the public to agree with them, then liberals would have to govern with the consent of the governed! Think of the indecency; liberals could barely do anything unless those nasty Tea Party people and fans of Sarah Palin said it was okay!

And while liberals do like certain freedoms, in their hearts they don’t really like this whole democracy thing. If liberals were only voting amongst each other, that would be great, but you can’t actually let everyone — some who only went to community college — have a say in what the government can and can’t do. Much better to have only the elites deciding themselves what they can do, based on their best intentions. It’s like what now ex-Representative Phil Hare said when questioned on the constitutionality of ObamaCare: He didn’t worry about the Constitution. If liberals are trying to change things for the better, why should there be any limits on them… especially ones enforced by the ignorant masses?

And so liberals hope that no one reads the Constitution and that everyone leaves all the questions of what the government can do to left-wing judges who will make decisions based on what they feel is right. Then liberals will be freed from having to get the consent of the unenlightened American public who give their kids Happy Meals and eat trans-fats. They will then have the ability to force people to do what’s best and give the government all the power it needs for a better, more ordered, peaceful society.

Until they’re shipped off to the mines.

Frank J. Fleming writes political humor at IMAO.us and isn't sure whether there are gold and gems to mine for in Antarctica, but that's besides the point.

WHAT MOTIVATES OBAMA: LEFTIST TURNOUT

The best way to catch a fox is to understand their lay of the land. Obama is one crafty dude, not that intelligent, but very cunning. By now, we know how well he sets the stage: race baiting; strawmen à la the big bad banks, the awful insurance companies, those thieving pharmaceuticals, and let's not forget Goldman Sachs, who single-handedly caused the economic downfall of 2008. Strawmen.

I fear we have just seen the tip of the iceberg, if you can believe that. In the desperate weeks and months before this November's elections, we will see some pretty amazing new moves, but wait til 2012. I shudder to think, but we must -- because it's just too critical. Knowledge is power, and we can succeed, the smarter and more prepared we get.


Dick Morris gives us some useful insights worth saving for that rainy day:

WHAT MOTIVATES OBAMA: LEFTIST TURNOUT
by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, May 5, 2010

Why is Obama vilifying FOX News? Why does Harry Reid push an immigration bill he knows can't pass? Why won't Schumer compromise on regulatory reform and why does he try to hang Goldman Sachs around the GOP? Why did Bill Clinton blame conservatives who oppose big government for the Oklahoma City bombing?

All share one motivation: To increase their base's turnout in the off year elections of 2010. Going after FOX News stimulates a feeling of victimization on the left. The immigration bill and the new Arizona law catalyzes a Latino turnout. Goldman Sachs enrages liberal anti-Wall Street populists. By characterizing the Tea Party activists as dangerous, liberals are aroused to vote in November.

There are two ways to win any election: energize the base or appeal to the center. Obama is, predictably, choosing the former, deliberately pushing policies that drive Independents into Republican arms as the price for generating passion on the part of his supporters.

Turnout in presidential year elections averages about 20 points higher than in off-year legislative races. Normally, the decrease in turnout is primarily among the least educated voters -- African-Americans and Latino-Americans -- and among young voters. These groups are, of course, precisely those that rallied to back Obama and put him over the top in 2008. A falloff in their turnout would be fatal to Obama's hopes of continuing Democratic control of Congress.

So Obama is doing all he can to generate a turnout, even going to the lengths of fostering racial tensions over immigration to energize his base.

Ultimately, the two events of this past week -- the oil spill and the Times Square terror attack -- will work in opposite political directions. While Obama may lose the day to day effort to convince us that he acted in a timely way to contain the spill, the more damage the oil does, the more environmentalists will be activated and fears of off shore drilling will be stoked. Advantage: Obama.

And the reverse is true of the Times Square attack. While Attorney General Eric Holder and the Homeland Security folks may win the day to day coverage of how they located and arrested the terror suspect, pulling him off a plane on the runway at JFK, the entire episode will raise fears of terrorism. Voters will ask why we have had three attempted attacks on US soil since Obama took office (Ft. Hood, Detroit airplane, and Times Square) while we had none in the seven years of Bush after 9/11. Advantage: Republicans.

The more either story has legs, the more the spill spreads and the more terror fears escalate, the more the respective political parties will benefit.


Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns, and signup for his email!
See his 2 informative books, "Catastrophe" and "2010"