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.

REACTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT'S POST-ELECTION PRESS CONFERENCE

Look at what we've done! A hearty congratulations goes out to all conservatives and tea partiers for a job well done. It was historic, and a devastating blow against communism, socialism, marxism and all the other unsuccessful big government ism's out there. Through all the tears, aches and pains suffered over the last two years -- we have been triumphant.

Not since 1938, has there been such a blowout, and all the negative attacks by the press, the libs, and especially the soon-to-be-gone 'moderate' Republicans, cannot dim the light of this bright and shining victory.

The National Journal reported today that the GOP picked up 680 seats in state legislatures across the country, and now hold more seats than at any time since 1928. It far exceeds the 472 seats in the 1994 "Contract With America" blowout with a 52 seat pick up in the House, and the post-Watergate 628 Democrat seat pickup in 1974.

And yet, Obama is in complete and utter denial. Again, he blames an ignorant and mis-informed people for his "shellacking", and insists the election in no way is a reflection on him or his policies, but rather on a weak economy.

Really?

This conservative victory means more than meets the eye, for the 10 Republican Governor pickup means the all important redistricting process will play a huge part in the 2012 election.

So, while there were a few heart-breakers in the momentous 2010 election, there are so many reasons to be grateful and proud. It reminded me of the disappointment I felt when Ronald Reagan lost the presidential nomination in 1976, and why he is so loved to this day. His words were powerful then, and appropriate now -- so take heart, keep your spirits high, and keep up the great. Three cheers for all. You deserve it.

If anyone forgot why Ronald Reagan became the greatest president in modern times, here's one of many examples. This is a speech he gave as he bid farewell to his campaign staff after his second defeat for the presidential nomination: (h/t Mark Levin)

"Sure there's disappointment in what happened, but the cause.... the cause goes on. Don't get cynical ...because, look at yourselves, at what you were willing to do, and recognise that there are millions and millions of Americans out there that want what you want, that want it to be that way, that want it to be a shining city on a hill."

It brought tears to my eyes, and then he wrote --

We fought, we dreamed, and the dream is still with us.
Ronald Reagan



Keith Hennessey writes an excellent piece about Obama's post-election speech, his off-the-mark, carefully structured, sharp words, which "foreshadow his upcoming economic priorities and themes for next year’s budget and State of the Union address".

Reactions to the President's Post-Election Press Conference
by Keith Hennessey - November 3, 2010

Here are my initial reactions to important economic policy elements of the President’s press conference.

The President argued the electoral losses were the result of a continued weak economy and his inability to convince voters that he had made things better quickly enough. He repeatedly ducked the question of whether his policies contributed to the Democrats’ devastating losses. Two conclusions are consistent with ducking this question: (1) he thinks his policies did not hurt Democrats on Election Day; or (2) he knows they hurt Democrats but doesn’t want to admit it because doing so would further risk the policy gains he has achieved. I find it very hard to imagine (1), but I misjudged him last January and as a result I incorrectly concluded he would stop pushing for health care reform, so I lack confidence in my ability to discern between the two.

---------------------------------------------------------

He did not acknowledge learning anything from the election or that he was in any way surprised by the result. In contrast he surprised me with the word “confirmed”:

And yesterday’s vote confirmed what I’ve heard from folks all across America: People are frustrated — they’re deeply frustrated — with the pace of our economic recovery and the opportunities that they hope for their children and their grandchildren.

Given this answer, I’d like to ask him “Were you surprised by Tuesday’s results?”

--------------------------------------------------------

The initial press reaction was that the President “took responsibility for the losses.” The precise words in his prepared statement were, however, artfully phrase:

Over the last two years, we’ve made progress. But, clearly, too many Americans haven’t felt that progress yet, and they told us that yesterday. And as President, I take responsibility for that.

The President took responsibility only for “too many Americans [not feeling] progress yet.” That’s a minor concession, along the lines of “We didn’t communicate our policies well.” He conceded nothing about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of his economic policies, nor about the unpopularity of stimulus, health care, or cap-and-trade.

---------------------------------------------------------

In a prepared statement as important as this one, no language is accidental. These sentences foreshadow his upcoming economic priorities and themes for next year’s budget and State of the Union address:

But what I think the American people are expecting, and what we owe them, is to focus on those issues that affect their jobs, their security, and their future: reducing our deficit, promoting a clean energy economy, making sure that our children are the best educated in the world, making sure that we’re making the investments in technology that will allow us to keep our competitive edge in the global economy.

and

In this century, the most important competition we face is between America and our economic competitors around the world. To win that competition, and to continue our economic leadership, we’re going to need to be strong and we’re going to need to be united.

He also tends to connect economic competitiveness with domestic infrastructure, R&D, and education spending. This linkage is not accidental.

-------------------------------------------------------

He tried to erect a firewall around the health care laws:

And with so much at stake, what the American people don’t want from us, especially here in Washington, is to spend the next two years refighting the political battles of the last two.

Yet for several months he has been refighting (is that a word?) the tax rate battle of ten years earlier, and his entire economic message has been a backward-looking complaint and a relitigation of the policies and conditions he “inherited.”

--------------------------------------------------------

He floated a few areas of potential bipartisan agreement:

•the looming tax increases;
•energy:

◦expanding domestic natural gas supply;
◦energy efficiency;
◦“how we build electric cars”;
◦expanding nuclear power;

•education;
•limiting appropriations earmarks;
•fixing one tax provision in the health care laws that hurts small businesses;
•infrastructure spending; and
•immediate (and temporary) expensing of business investment.

------------------------------------------------------

He acknowledged that legislation pricing carbon is dead for the foreseeable future. In doing so he acknowledged a well-established conventional wisdom, but it’s still significant when the President says it. His “this year” language should kill silly speculation about a lame duck Congress trying to enact cap-and-trade in 2010, and his “… or the year after…” language takes cap-and-trade off the table through the remainder of this Presidential term.

I think there are a lot of Republicans that ran against the energy bill that passed in the House last year. And so it’s doubtful that you could get the votes to pass that through the House this year or next year or the year after.

He also signaled a willingness to trade legislative action on “clean energy” with dialing back (or prohibiting?) EPA from regulating greenhouse gases:

So I think it’s too early to say whether or not we can make some progress on that front. I think we can. Cap and trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means, not an end. And I’m going to be looking for other means to address this problem.

And I think EPA wants help from the legislature on this. I don’t think that the desire is to somehow be protective of their powers here. I think what they want to do is make sure that the issue is being dealt with.

-------------------------------------------------------

Finally, on the question of looming tax increases he signaled that “this is something that has to be done during the lame duck session,” and he made no negative statements about extending all the rates. When asked directly “So you’re willing to negotiate?” he replied “Absolutely.” In upcoming days I’ll write about potential paths to a tax deal.


Keith Hennessey served as the senior White House economic advisor to President George W. Bush from August 2002 through the first three weeks of 2009.

TEA PARTY WINNERS MAY BE SILENCED BY GOP BOSSES

What if Republicans take back the House? Have they really heard the American people? It's not just winning a seat in Congress that matters, but appointments to decision making positions that matter. If the newly elected members of congress are not given positions that effect government spending, the change America is looking for may not happen.

The GOP elitists know this, and although House Minority Leader John Boehner may have heard the ringing of the bell, there is no guarantee. Talk is cheap, and actions speak louder than words. The GOP's actions are going to be carefully watched, and appointments have consequences.

The whole point of electing constitutional conservatives is to bring back constitutional values of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets -- all critical to get our country back on track. New appointments for new Tea Party members will change the size and scope of government spending, but if they are shoved to the back, their impact will be meaningless.

Many, if not all, of the newly opened positions appear to be ear-marked (pun intended) for the senior members who have oligarchy running through their veins. They are the epitome of what is wrong with government and why there is such a conservative ascendancy. America wants to get back to representative government, and the new members must fight for this, just as they had to fight to get there. It's not over -- it's only just begun. Republicans have one chance, this chance, and it's a short one.

In her usual brilliant fashion, Betsy McCaughy of Defend Your Healthcare write of this trap in the New York Post.

The Seniority Trap
by BETSY McCAUGHEY - November 1, 2010

Republicans are expected to win enough seats in tomorrow's elections to control the House of Representatives. Already, GOP chiefs are divvying up key committee chairmanships -- with the same people who ran things last time 'round jockeying to get their power back. If that happens, voters who supported Republican candidates to rein in the cost of government will be defeated after the election by the seniority system in Washington.

Tea Party candidates promised voters they'd end profligate spending, ear marks and political deal-making. Those who win tomorrow must be heard and heeded when they get to Washington, rather than relegated to unimportant jobs.

The GOP lost control of the House four years ago in no small part because voters had come to doubt the party's commitment to controlling spending. Voters now seem outraged enough at Democrats' overspending to give Republicans another chance. But the party chiefs may blow it.

One of the most powerful jobs in the House is to chair the Appropriations Committee, which divides up billions of dollars of federal funds. It's the favor factory. Appropriators rise to top leadership positions in both parties because they decide whose pet projects get funded. By definition, reining in federal spending means reining in the appropriators' power.

The leading contender for Appropriations Committee chair is Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, a prototype of the lifelong politician. He's been in Congress 32 years. He rose to the chairmanship in 2005 and stayed on as ranking minority member when the GOP lost the House in 2006.

Under GOP House rules, Lewis shouldn't be able to retain his party's top slot on the committee for more than three terms, but Lewis is expected to ask for a waiver -- and likely will get it.

Such decisions are made by the Republican House Steering Committee -- whose chairman, Rep. John Boehner, will become speaker if voters give Republicans the House majority. The deliberations on bestowing chairmanships are secret, but generally consider seniority along with popularity: who raises the most money for GOP candidates, toes the party line, gets along best with other members, etc.

House Republicans imposed term limits on chairmanships in January 1995, making good on a key promise of their Contract With America and ensuring that the message the voters had sent in the 1994 election upheaval would have an impact on what actually occurred in the House.

Now, as then, opening House leadership positions to newer members is vital to changing Congress' pro-spending ways. Term limits are meaningless, if they can be overridden by cronies.

The prospect of getting a waiver is the ultimate incentive for a chairman to dispense costly favors, in utter disregard of taxpayers or the federal debt.

GOP newcomers in Congress should jump all over this. To rein in spending, they should demand that the Appropriations Committee be handed over to serious cost-cutters -- not the same old figures who failed to stop earmarks, put up with TARP and played along with the Democrats' vast ballooning of the federal debt.

Waivers are reportedly also in the works so that chairmanships of other committees, including the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Rules Committee, will go to the same figures who held those jobs the last time the Republicans were in the majority. That's outrageous.

Polls indicate that voters aren't only shifting their preference from Democrats controlling Congress to Republicans. Voters are also anti-incumbent. They know that lawmakers who have been in Washington for years ignore what the public wants. Candidates who win on Tuesday must go to Washington determined to end the oligarchy and restore representative government.

It's common sense that newly elected Congress members are likely to be truer representatives of the people than members who've held their seats for decades, climbed the seniority ladder, and catered to the Washington establishment. Yet party leaders will try to consign newcomers to unimportant assignments.

Other GOP members should also think twice about letting the old bulls run the show. This is not the way to hold onto the majority that the Democrats are forfeiting because of their big-spending ways. For 2010 to be a watershed, the rules must change.

At last February's Conservative Action Political Conference, Boehner was asked how he'd handle the Tea Partiers if he became speaker. He promised to listen to them and open the House to their influence: "I'll pledge to you right here, right now, that we're going to run the House differently." We'll soon see if he's ready to keep that promise.


Betsy McCaughey (DefendYourHealthcare.us) is a former New York lieutenant governor and author of "The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It."

THIS IS A REFERENDUM, NOT AN ELECTION

We heard him say it with our own ears -- My name is not on the ballot, but my agenda is. In all his speeches, across the fruited plain, for over two years, before a cherry-picked adoring audience, it's always about him. "My name may not be on the ballot, but our agenda for moving forward is on the ballot, and I need everybody to turn out," Obama said Tuesday afternoon during an appearance on the Rev. Al Sharpton's radio show. Is he saying this election is a referendum on him? Sounds like.

On the other hand, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) had another message: "They can't talk about their record," he said on Monday in a radio appearance. "You know, this election is going to be a referendum on their job-killing policies."

This is the stand that Democrats must play because they cannot stand on their issues. Most of us will never forget that wintry cold Sunday night back in March when they eeked out enough votes to pass Obamacare by two. Most of us will never forget how they did it. It was the straw that broke the camel's back, and why November 2nd is so critical to us. This destruction has been going on for decades.

Basically, it's not any one thing the libs have done, but a sum of its parts. This overreach is a pattern of Democrats, but never on such a grand scale. Another reason why Nov 2nd is more a referendum than an election.

Dennis Prager writes a great piece on this 'Referendum', and what will happen if the Democrats are allowed to continue along this path of destruction. It's an inspiration to get out and vote, to get your neighbors, friends, and family [even foes, if you can convince them) to follow. Our nation depends on it.

P.S. Thought and prayers to Carly Fiorina, and happy to hear you're back out there -- on your way to a historic win!

This Is a Referendum, Not an Election
by Dennis Prager - October 26, 2010

Next Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2010 is not Election Day. It is Referendum Day.

It may be commonplace for commentators to announce that every election is "the most important election in our lifetime" or something analogous. But having never said that of a presidential election, let alone an off-year election, this commentator cannot be accused of crying wolf when I say that this off-year election is not simply the most important of my lifetime. It is the most important since the Civil War.

The reason is that unlike all previous elections, this one is actually a referendum on the direction of the United States of America.

If the Democrats win:

-- The American people have announced, consciously or not, that they support the Democratic Party's "fundamental transformation" -- those were President Obama's words when he campaigned, and he has lived up to them -- of America from a liberty-based state of limited government into an equality-based welfare state with an ever-expanding government.

-- America will change from a country that emphasizes producing wealth to a country that emphasizes redistribution of wealth.

The left has never been primarily interested in creating wealth. Its primary goal always and everywhere has been to redistribute it. That so many businessmen and much of Wall Street are only now awakening to this fact is only a testament to the staggering lack of wisdom in big business.

-- America will produce increasingly narcissistic citizens.

For proof, just look at the virtual shutdown of much of France and the ubiquitous rioting of vast numbers of its citizens over a tiny change in its welfare state -- raising the age of retirement from 60 to 62. The idea that one will work two more years before receiving benefits until death so offends vast numbers of French -- including young people who have every reason to believe they will live until the age of 100 -- that they are fighting it as if their very lives were in jeopardy. That is the self-centeredness that all welfare states engender in their citizens.

-- America will further reinforce the conviction that minorities are victims -- who must be protected from their fellow Americans by the state.

Latinos, blacks, Muslims, gays and vast numbers of women have been told by the left and its political party that they are all persecuted by a country that is SIXHIRB -- Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Racist and Bigoted. That America is the least SIXHIRB country in the world is a fact that has been all but drowned out by the left-wing domination of television and print news media, all the entertainment media, and the high schools and universities.

-- America will continue to undermine its unique ability to Americanize people of all ethnic, national, racial, and religious backgrounds

With a Democratic victory the country's very motto -- E Pluribus Unum, "Out of Many One" -- will continue to erode as ethnic and racial identities rather one American identity are increasingly celebrated. Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel has just announced that Germany's experiment with multiculturalism has "utterly failed," but the left and its political party, the Democrats, have redoubled their efforts to supplant E Pluribus Unum with multiculturalism.

-- America will continue its economic slide.

With a Democratic victory, unsustainable debts will mount, wealth-producing companies will continue to flee from higher taxes and more regulations, energy use will be taxed in the name of environmentalist utopianism, and the government will continue to print dollars.

-- America will become increasingly secular.

With a Democratic victory, the left's goal of rendering America's other motto, "In God We Trust," an anachronism will come closer to fruition. Leftism is a jealous god. As in Western Europe, the Judeo-Christian roots of this country are ceasing to play the indispensible moral role they have played since before 1776.

And what would constitute a Democrat victory next Tuesday? Anything other than a Republican landslide. Any other result will be interpreted by the media and by the Democrats as solely a result of the economic recession and as the normal losses of the dominant party in off-year elections.

In other words, the only way to ensure that the electoral results are seen as a repudiation of the growth of the state and the other Democrat and leftist goals is through an enormous Republican victory.

Only then will America understand that this election was not first about jobs. It was above all about America.

Read more Dennis Prager columns here.

BEWARE THE RABID DOG IN THE ELEVENTH HOUR

Beware the rabid dog. Liberals are licking their wounds, and in recent rallies, Obama has sounded desperate, fatigued, and completely out of sorts. In a recent statement, he was at his race-baiting best and played the Rosa Parks card. Claiming that he had pulled America out of the ditch the Republicans had made, he said:

"We can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

Stooping to a new low, Obama used a racially charged pajorative that no other leader would be able to get away with. In this Univision interview, he is more divisive than ever before, making America out to be the enemy. With just one week until this critical election, apparently there are no holds barred, including lambasting your own country. This is a president who is suing one of our sister states, and asking Latinos to join the fight against the enemy -- America. Could he be any more divisive?

On the other hand, Democrats are sounding like Ronald Reagan all of a sudden. This is when the libs are at their worst, and the fangs will come out with just days before the election. It's known as the October Surprise, and I'm not talking baseball.

I remember the 1992 Senatorial election between Bruce Herschensohn and the evil Barbara Boxer. Herschensohn had closed a double digit gap, and a desperate Boxer came out with a smear tactic in the eleventh hour before the election accusing him of frequenting strip clubs.

Herschensohn admitted that he had visited a strip club with his girlfriend and another couple once, but that didn't matter to Boxer. She took a one time incident and exploded it hours before the election, costing, what many believe, the election for Bruce Herschensohn. Ironically, Mr. Herschensohn is one of the rare and decent politicians we have had in decades, and Boxer tried to destroy him.

Although his campaign attempted to expose Boxer's deception, she won by five points -- and we're still stuck with her. Who can forget her lambaste of Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh to "call me senator". Wake up California!

Boxer has a reputation of pulling out the stops in the eleventh hour. She did it again in 1998 against state Treasurer Matt Fong, accusing him of not supporting patients' right to due HMOs, untrue, but when did the truth matter to Boxer?

We have déjà vu all over again, and be prepared for another Boxer slime blast, Ms. Fiorina, for she will find something, blow it out of proportion, and smear it just before the election with no time to respond, but enough time to do the damage.

Are these the kind of people we want running our country? I don't see conservatives running smear campaigns. They are running on facts, and libs cannot do that, because the facts speak for themselves. It's important to focus on this -- facts not smear, facts not blame -- in the waning days before the mid-term elections. They are so critical.

Forewarned is forearmed. Now, get out and vote.

MICHELLE OBAMA AND ELECTION INTEGRITY

In the royal court of King Louis Obama and Michelle Antoinette the laws apply to thou but not to them. We have seen this in incidentals such as cauliflower for us but french fries for them; no Las Vegas trips for us but excessive vacations to Europe and Martha's Vinyard for them; Mme Antoinette says Barack "will require you to work" while he plays endless rounds of golf, surpassing the 8 years George W. Bush was in office.

But the most egregious was the dismissal of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. In the same vein, we now have Michelle Obama stumping for her husband inside a polling place in, of all places, their hometown of Chicago.

The press and the White House are, of course, downplaying this with a "Stand By Your Man" excuse, but if it were First Lady Laura Bush or, heaven forbid, Pat Nixon, they would be up before a Senate hearing.

The man who knows first hand about the New Black Panter case, J. Christian Adams formerly of the DOJ, writes a short piece on the injustice of tyranny in Pajamas Media.

Michelle Obama and Election Integrity
Did FLOTUS flout election law?
by J. Christian Adams - October 14, 2010

The laws are supposed to apply equally to everyone, or so we thought most of our lives. Today Michelle Obama did something that was never tolerated during any of the many elections which I monitored: she politicked inside the polling place. This is the latest example of the Obama administration not believing in equality before law.

Today, when Michelle Obama voted early in Chicago, she reportedly told a voter that he needed to vote to keep her husband’s legislative agenda alive. This took place in an area where such electioneering is prohibited by Illinois law. The law has criminal consequences.

Like the New Black Panther case, photographs exist of the lawbreaking. And like the dismissal of the New Black Panther case, the administration has swung into action to abet lawbreaking. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that the first lady supports her husband’s agenda.

Like so much about the New Black Panther case, that isn’t the point. The point is the rule of law, that precious institution that makes America thrive and, in her darker hours, survive. Laws should apply equally to everyone, whether a president or a prisoner. That is the revolutionary idea that drove our revolution.

People like Pete Rose and Richard Nixon learned that America has little tolerance for those who think they are above the law.

Is this the worst thing to afflict an election? Of course not. Armed New Black Panthers were obviously much worse. In the larger scheme of things, Michelle Obama’s lawbreaking is authentic “small potatoes.” But someone in her position has a higher obligation to the institutions our nation treasures, like the rule of law.

The stand-up response from the first lady, and the White House press shop, would be to admit a mistake, affirm they believe in respect of the rules that protect election integrity. But this isn’t a stand-up administration. Like the stonewall that followed the New Black Panther dismissal, we have learned that this is an administration incapable of admitting they screwed up.

What does a ban on electioneering have to do with election integrity? It prevents people from being bothered, coerced, or badgered. A blanket ban on electioneering in the polls prevents both what happened in Chicago today and the thuggery that characterized elections throughout our history. Michelle Obama should step up and admit a mistake, and talk about the importance of laws ensuring election integrity. To do otherwise tells us what we need to know how much they respect election integrity safeguards.

J. Christian Adams is an election lawyer who served in the Voting Rights Section at the U.S. Department of Justice. His website is www.electionlawcenter.com

QUESTIONS FOR CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES

As the Nov 2nd elections are finally within reach, we are witnessing the onslaught of a herd of wolves in sheep's clothing. Suddenly the Democrats are talking like conservatives, but their voting records show these people are lying.

Will Americans be fooled this time? Will they fall for the smooth talking leftists who cannot run on their victories over the past 20 months? Say it ain't so, Joe.

The left voted over 90% of the time with either Pelosi, Reid, Obama, or all three and these three are perfectly happy to be temporarily dissed, as long as the Democrat candidates win, so that they can maintain the absolute power they have enjoyed over the past miserable 20 months.

Shows how strongly they stand behind their principles.

In her Eagle Forum, the quick-witted and knowledgeable Phyllis Schlafly lays out some excellent questions that should be asked of ALL candidates -- of both parties -- to help make that final decision where to cast their vote.

Questions for Congressional Candidates
by Phyllis Schlafly - October 8, 2010

We look forward to the 2010 elections in the hope that we can decisively reject Barack Obama's plans to "fundamentally transform the United States." Here are some questions voters can ask all candidates to help decide whom to vote for.

• Will you vote against all tax increases and new taxes?
• Will you vote to extend all the Republican tax cuts?
• Will you vote to cut federal spending to the pre-bailout level?
• Will you vote to abolish the death tax without passing a new tax (called "carryover basis") on the sale of inherited property?
• Will you pledge to vote to repeal Obamacare?
• Will you vote for legislation providing that all health plans receiving federal tax benefits include the availability of high-deductible insurance with health savings accounts?
• Will you pledge to enact a government-wide ban on the funding of abortions in any health plan that receives federal benefits?
• Will you pledge to vote against any form of amnesty for illegal aliens?
• Will you vote to cut off funds for the Attorney General to sue to get a judge to knock out Arizona's popular immigration-enforcement law?
• Will you vote to require employers to use the E-Verify system to verify the Social Security numbers of their employees?
• Will you order the federal government to build the fence on our southern border as legislated in the Secure Fence Act of 2006?
• Will you send U.S. troops to our southern border to prevent illegal entry?
• Will you vote for legislation providing that no judge can force the government to communicate with anyone in a language other than English?
• Will you vote for legislation requiring that aliens seeking to enter or remain in the United States must renounce a belief in jihad, sharia, polygamy, child marriage, arranged marriage, "honor" killings, and female genital mutilation?
• Will you vote to prohibit Mexican trucks on U.S. roads?
• Will you vote to stop giving the benefits of U.S. citizenship to babies ("anchor babies") born to illegal aliens?
• Will you vote for legislation repealing EMTALA (which requires hospitals to provide free medical care to illegal aliens) and limiting Plyler v. Doe (which requires public schools to give a free education to the children of illegal aliens)?
• Will you vote against any bills that exceed the enumerated constitutional powers of Congress?
• Will you vote to prohibit the use of taxpayers' funds for any activity designed to promote economic or political union with North America or any foreign countries?
• Will you pledge to vote No on increased federal involvement in education?
• Will you urge congressional committee chairmen to hold public hearings on the grab for legislative powers by supremacist judges, and then take appropriate action to require the judiciary to respect the separation of powers?
• Will you vote to tie federal school appropriations to informed, written parental consent for curricula, surveys, classes or books that may be privacy-invading or offensive to religion or conscience?
• Will you vote to defund Planned Parenthood?
• Will you pledge to vote No on any attempt to repeal DOMA?
• Will you support the right of all fit parents to the care, custody, and control of the upbringing of their children, even if parents are divorced?
• Will you vote No on any effort to revive the so-called Equal Rights Amendment and on any legislation implying that the ERA, which expired in 1982, is still somehow viable?
• Will you vote against repeal of the law that forbids open homosexuals from serving in our military?
• Will you oppose any and all proposals for a national Constitutional Convention (known as a Con Con)?
• Will you oppose any attempt to bypass the Electoral College by a vote-transfer deceit called National Popular Vote?
• Will you vote against any legislation to pretend that the District of Columbia is a state and entitled to a state's representation in Congress?
• Will you vote No on any carbon tax or cap-and-trade bill?
• Will you vote to eliminate the ban on our favorite light bulbs?
• Will you vote No on Card Check that eliminates the secret ballot in workers' elections?
• Will you vote for legislation providing that actions claiming a violation of the Establishment Clause shall not be eligible for an award of attorney's fees?

Questions especially for Senate candidates:

• Will you vote No on the New START Treaty, which would restrict our right to build anti-missile defenses?
• Will you vote No on the UN Law of the Sea Treaty?
• Will you vote No on the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child?
• Will you vote No on the UN Treaty on Women (known as CEDAW)?
• Will you vote against any judicial nominee who espouses the unconstitutional theories of a "living" or "evolving" Constitution, or an "activist" judiciary?

The more Yes answers to these questions, the more support the candidate deserves.

Read previous Phyllis Schlafly columns

THE FIRED CONGRESS

Jim DeMint makes an excellent point. In the business [real] world, when an employee is fired they are escorted off the premises and not allowed to return for fear of future damage. What kind of damage can a group of ticked off congressional people do in the Obama Regime? I shudder to think.

The pressure will be on Republicans to cave in to the whim of Democrats, especially towards the holidays, but another one-third of them will be up for re-election in 2012. Although many of us will be overwhelmed during that time, and having been there last year (who can forget the Harry Reid Christmas Eve obamacare vote), it will be time to melt the phone lines -- again.

If not, they will rob us blind. They have a whole Christmas list of items just waiting to ram down our throats, but this is a new era, and Americans saw up close and personal how 'politics as usual' was done. Well, that is no longer acceptable and we can make a difference.

We're reminded that the Republicans did not shove taxes, pork, or earmarks through before the Pelosi Regime took over. Is turnabout fair play? I think not. The Senator from South Carolina, Jim DeMint, writes a great piece on this in National Review Online:

The Fired Congress
In December, more than a dozen senators will come back to Washington and decide how much more tax money to take from Americans, without being accountable to any of them.
by Jim DeMint - October 5, 2010

Some companies have a policy that once someone is fired, they aren’t allowed back on the premises out of fear they might do further damage to the company. It’s too bad Congress doesn’t have the same policy. Because before they’re replaced in January, all of the Democrats who are put out of a job in November will be able to come back and rob the nation blind.

More than a dozen senators will come back to Washington and decide how much more tax money to take from Americans, without being accountable to any of them. Higher taxes, cap-and-trade, amnesty, and card check will be top-priority items for the Fired Congress, otherwise known as the lame-duck Congress. They’re also likely to roll unfinished appropriations bills into a massive, pork-stuffed omnibus to snag every last possible earmark on their way out of Washington.

This must not happen. The only acceptable outcome of the lame-duck session is a continuing resolution to keep government operating at current levels of spending and taxation, as I pushed the Senate to do in 2006 after Republicans lost the majority to the Democrats. No last-minute earmarks, no add-ons, no tax increases, and no big deficit spending.

By simply passing a continuing resolution that kept the government funded at current levels until February 2007, Republicans stopped more than 10,000 earmarks from being enacted and prevented big spenders in Congress from wasting billions of dollars on pork-barrel projects. Then, 2007 became the year without earmarks, because when that temporary continuing resolution expired in February, Congress extended it for the rest of the year. We should adopt the same approach during the 2010 lame-duck session.

To stop a wasteful omnibus and instead secure a continuing resolution, Republicans must hold together. Fortunately, the GOP may have a few reinforcements on the way. Three new senators will take office immediately following the midterms — one each from Delaware, Illinois, and West Virginia, where special elections are being held to replace temporarily appointed senators. And the Republicans running in these races are eager to help.

Illinois Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk has promised that if he wins, “I will become the 42nd Republican senator, with the opportunity to put the brakes on any lame-duck overreach.”

Delaware Republican candidate Christine O’Donnell has made it part of her pitch, too. “Who do you want serving in that lame-duck session?” she has said. “Someone who’s going to promote that very liberal agenda that can’t even get enough Democratic support, or someone who is going to push back against the establishment?”

West Virginia’s Republican Senate candidate, John Raese, who is up in the polls, has stated unequivocally that he would oppose the Democrats’ lame-duck agenda. He has said, “It is completely inappropriate for House and Senate Democrats, who would be in cahoots with President Obama, to take up any legislation that would significantly affect the country after an election that will considerably alter the political landscape of Congress. Any attempt to do so would be a slap in the face to all Americans who voted for a change from the liberal status quo.”

More candidates should go on the record with such statements. There’s a whole month of campaigning left before the midterms, and voters can extract promises from their elected officials not to let the Fired Congress pass major legislation. This is a reasonable request that even the Democrats should be able to support. Colorado Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck has called on Democratic senator Michael Bennet to promise to oppose any tax hikes Harry Reid may try to ram through during the lame-duck session. All Senate Democrats up for election this year should be asked to do the same.

Getting more elected officials to speak out against a spendthrift lame-duck session can help deter the Democratic leadership from cramming it with votes. It’s been reported that Democrats are considering as many as 20 pieces of legislation to bring up for a vote. After failing to get the New START Treaty (an agreement that hurts America’s missile-defense systems) ratified, to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and to pass legislation to give amnesty to illegal aliens, Democrats see opportunity after the elections, when a number of their members won’t have anything to lose.

Democrats are also hoping that the pressure of a Christmas deadline will get some Republicans to break their way. White House senior adviser David Axelrod recently said he thinks Republicans will “blink” and help Democrats raise taxes as the end-of-the year deadline approaches. Republicans must not cave.

Democrats are playing political games and Americans are going to fire them for it in November. When the Democrats come back in December to box up their personal belongings, Republicans must make sure that’s all they take with them.

— Jim DeMint is a U.S. senator from South Carolina.

WHAT WAS BEFORE IS AGAIN

We are going to start hearing all about a Democrat surge in the weeks and days before our November 2nd historic elections -- especially in light of the highly successful Communist/Socialist gathering of Oct 2nd at our nation's capitol. And you can believe that, as much as a Democrat surge.

CSPAN used an 8-28 rally photo (here) for this Socialist gathering and later had to pull it because they were exposed.  Just goes to show you that the real media is taking hold. It also shows the left is openly embracing their socialist/communist identity.

These people are so desperate, the gloves are coming off (as usual) and the stuff will be slinging right and left -- pun intended. This is where the biased mainstream media will play their most important role to date -- misleading the American people in a pivotal mid-term election.

In case some of us have forgotten, and younger voters have been programmed by the liberal education system, Erick Erickson points out in Red State:

What Was Before Is Again
by Erick Erickson - October 4, 2010

The New York Times ran an article over the weekend that the House of Representatives is still not in the hands of the GOP. A Newsweek survey came out with an oddity of a generic ballot answer. Gallup has been jumping all over the place.

Had I a show, I’d say “roll the tape.” Instead, you’ll have to settle for this.

Here’s Charlie Cook’s review of the October generic ballot data trickling out:

In polls by the Gallup Organization for CNN and USA Today, among all adult Americans, Republicans have now been ahead of Democrats on the generic ballot test in all five surveys taken since mid-August. In the most recent poll, taken last Tuesday and Wednesday, Republicans had a 3-point advantage among registered voters, 48 to 45 percent.

A CBS News poll … among registered voters still found a narrow one-point Democratic edge, 42 to 41 percent, but that’s compared to a 10-point Democratic advantage in October 1992.

An … ABC News poll found a 3-point Republican advantage among adults nationwide, 47 to 44 percent, compared to a 6-point GOP edge in both September and August ABC/Washington Post polls.

Tim Curran in Roll Call noted, “[A] slew of late polls show key races tightening around the country” and there were “indications of a slight Democratic comeback last week.”

Hotline reported “recent polls showing Dems even or leading in generic ballot questions” and asked Bill Kristol for comment. Kristol said, “Republicans have not gotten as many votes across the nation as Democrats in a Congressional race in 40 years.”

Margaret Carlson is on television saying of the GOP’s insurgency, “The corks were popped a little early.”

David Lauter, writing in the Los Angeles Times, reports

Asked which party can do a better job on the country’s major problems, 36% favored Republicans, 29% chose Democrats and 15% said neither party….

The GOP holds similar edges on individual issues, including crime, welfare reform, the economy and the federal budget deficit. Even on health care, where the Democrats once enjoyed a large margin, the two sides are now even, at 38%, with 14% saying that neither party is up to the job.

The GOP edge generally has not come about because Republicans have won major improvements in their ratings as problem-solvers. Instead, respondents turned away from the Democrats, dropping their ratings. Moreover, the percentage saying they think that neither party can handle the nation’s problems has risen.

Yes, yes, the nation hates the GOP, but wants the GOP in charge.

Now, here’s the catch — all of those stories were from October of 1994 ranging from 4 weeks to a week before the November 8, 1994, sweep of the GOP.

The polls were tightening. The Democrats were again neck and neck with the GOP in 1994. Not only that, but the economy had improved. The recession was not only declared over, but employment was significantly on the rise.

The President was on the campaign trail in October of 1994 trying to rev up black voters and telling people not to go back to the era of George Bush. Same this year.

On October 9, 1994, a month out from the November 8, 1994 election, the Washington Post’s Kevin Merida wrote, “One matchup pits William Frist (R), a wealthy heart-lung transplant surgeon from Nashville, against Sen. Jim Sasser (D), an 18-year veteran who chairs the Budget Committee and is making a strong bid to be the next Senate majority leader. Though some polls have showed the race tightening, several independent analysts doubt that Frist has enough to knock Sasser out. But he is trying.”

Bill Frist won the race 56% to 42%.

Read more Erick Erickson here.

OUR DYING CONSTITUTION - and HOW TO REVIVE IT, II

During the current administration's reign, we have witnesses our constitution shredded bit by painful bit. By the grace of God, America is awakening and becoming more involved. The threat of losing our freedom has never been greater -- our freedoms, as meticulously laid out in the founding documents, written by Christians and founded on Judao-Christian principles.

We are 60 days away from what will be the most important mid-term elections in our history to date. We have lots of work ahead, and knowledge being all powerful, Eagle Forum has, once again, stepped up with some excellent tools in order to help with this daunting task. This is Part II, and Part I is linked here.

Check it out...

Our Dying Constitution — and How to Revive It, II
Eagle Forum, by Virginia Armstrong, PhD - September 2, 2010

As the elections of 2010 loom closer, the politics of Barack Obama's reign are a swirling miasma in which many of the American electorate are caught up. But the most critical issue in this elections — as in American politics and law in general — is the continuous dying process of our venerable Constitution and how we can — MUST — revive it.

This situation is described so aptly by former U. S. Senator Sam Ervin that we repeat here his words as quoted in the opening of our last Court Watch study. In 1981, Ervin wrote that

The usurpation of this power [to amend the Constitution] by Supreme Court Justices does not prove that the Constitution is a living instrument of government. On the contrary, it proves that the Constitution is dead, and that the people of our land are being ruled by the transitory personal notions of Justices who occupy for a fleeting moment of history seats on the Supreme Court bench rather than by the enduring precepts of the Constitution. [emphasis added]

Today, we may correctly argue that the Constitution is not quite dead. It is also accurate to argue that the moribund condition of our basic document is indeed due to U.S. Supreme Court Justices, who interpret the Constitution, not according to its "enduring precepts," but according to their "transitory personal notions." And there is every reason to make these judicial death blows — and how to repel them effectively — the center of all our political/legal life.

We must

1. Make it a primary national priority to protect and promote the survival and health of the U.S. Constitution, and.
2. Be armed to declare and defend the "Fundamental Four" — facts/talking points which advance our primary priority.

The "Fundamental Four" talking points are listed below:

T.P. #1: Any legal system (including that of the U.S.) can survive and thrive ONLY if it continues to be characterized by the three Cs — certainty, consistency, and continuity.

T.P. #2: Constitutionalist theory/Judeo-Christian worldview is the only approach to the Constitution which will protect and promote the three Cs in America's law and culture.

1. A "worldview" is a depiction of reality; only the worldview approach adequately explains reality. A "worldview" consists of an orderly arrangement of inherent, interrelated components central to a particular worldview.
2. A central component of a worldview is "constitutional theory," consisting of an organized system of core concepts.
3. The Judeo-Christian worldview and the constitutionalist theory it encompasses manifest characteristics unique to this worldview and superior to any alternative.

T. P. #3: In America's current Culture War, the three Cs are being undermined by Humanists/Reconstructionists' war against Constitutionalists for control of America's Constitutional theory (principles). This fierce assault is most forcefully and clearly revealed in court decisions (products) concerning the specific issue areas of religious liberties, evolutionism v. creationism, life, and homosexual rights/marriage.

T. P. #4: Americans have the mandate — and the muscle — to fight more effectively to Revive the Constitution!

1. Basic principles support the mandate.
2. Specific plans exist for implementing the mandate.

EVERY AMERICAN PATRIOT SHOULD — AND CAN — UNDERSTAND AND EFFECTIVELY USE THESE POWERFUL TALKING POINTS TO REVIVE THE CONSTITUITON. SOUND INTIMIDATING? BLACKSTONE CAN HELP!

Available online or directly from the Blackstone Institute are educational weapons to start you on your mission. (Each of the following can be studied individually or in groups.) These weapons include:

• "Courting Justice Blitz": a spectacular 45" multi-media DVD and printed materials overviewing the battle to Revive the Constitution and the RTC Plan.
• "Blackstone Blitz": two 55" "whiz-bang" multi-media online presentations with printed materials arming you to attack Reconstructionism and defend Constitutionalism.
• "The Basic Blackstone": our "must-read" piece, included in each of the Blitzes (and available separately), and containing the new second edition of our premier "Constitutionalist Manifesto" and "Constitutionalist Papers".
• Our bombshell "Mega-Blitz": created by combining two Blitzes into a single study to be covered in four separate sessions, a four-hour workshop/seminar, etc.

JOIN US IN FIGHTING TO REVIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!

EagleForum.org/court_watch or BlackstoneInstitute.org or 325/673-3020

CALIF. PRIMARY REMINDER: LAIRD ENDORSED BY OBAMA VS. BLAKESLEE AUG. 17th

Debate Calendar

August 17th is a special state Senate election in a runoff between John Laird (D) and Sam Blakeslee (R). Laird has recently been endorsed by Obama, and if Laird wins, the Democrats would be within one vote of the two-thirds majority they need in the state Senate to approve tax increases and the state budget.  Over the last 19 months, we have witnessed what happens when there is no balance of power.

Both campaigns have been "well-greased with cash", and a write-in ballot will make it easier for California voters off on summer holidays across the district to mail in their vote, so every vote counts.

From The Californian in June:

Monterey County voters have a chance to impact the balance of power in the state Legislature on June 22.

The special primary election to fill the open state Senate seat in District 15 pits Santa Cruz Democrat John Laird against San Luis Obispo Republican Sam Blakeslee. You might call it the battle of the North vs. the South.

Drawn in 2001 to protect a moderate Republican, Abel Maldonado, Senate District 15 has morphed into a Democratic majority. Maldonado's appointment to lieutenant governor earlier this year left the Senate seat open. Republicans are desperate to keep it to prevent Democrats from moving closer to a supermajority in the Legislature with a District 15 victory.

Blakeslee took a 7 percent lead in the June 22nd primary winning 49.4 percent of the vote, just short of the needed 50%. This makes the August 17th runoff critical, as the Democrats hold a 7-point registration edge in the district.  Laird has a record of raising taxes and killing jobs.  Sound familiar?

Let's get out and vote -- time to "take out the trash".

2010 CONGRESSIONAL PRIMARY CALENDAR

"Fasten your seatbelts; it's going to be a bumpy night" (ALL ABOUT EVE 1950)

And so, each election Tuesday will be one bumpy night after another, until November 3, 2010. Holy cow!  Counting the days. (hat tip Political Wire)

The complete 2010 calendar, so we all can participate in one way or another.  All elections are critical, and we can all make a difference. Schedule your vacations around them, as we have painfully learned -- elections have consequences:

February 2
•Illinois

March 2
•Texas

April 13
•Texas run-off

May 4
•Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio

May 11
•Nebraska, West Virginia

May 18
•Arkansas, Kentucky, Oregon, Pennsylvania

May 25
•Idaho

June 1
•Alabama, Mississippi, New Mexico

June 8
•California, Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Arkansas run-off

June 22
•Utah, North Carolina run-off, Mississippi run-off, South Carolina run-off

June 29
•South Dakota run-off

July 13
•Alabama run-off

July 20
•Georgia

July 27
•Oklahoma

August 3
•Kansas, Michigan, Missouri

August 5
•Tennessee

August 10
•Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia run-off

August 17
•Washington, Wyoming (NOTE for California: 15th District runoff)

August 24
•Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Oklahoma run-off

August 28
•Louisiana

September 14
•Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin

September 18
•Hawaii

October 2
•Louisiana run-off

GOP ON TRACK TO SNATCH DEFEAT FROM JAWS OF VICTORY

The recent primaries have unleashed a miriad of emotions, which must be paralleled to a sign of our time. Never in our short history has there been such turmoil, and that is not to diminish the very difficult times America has fought herself through. You have to admit that what we witnessed this past week is a first, and has infuriated the majority of American citizens. It's almost as though this was planned by a cunning and crafty president.

We have become a nation severely divided, thanks to the president, who was annointed to be post-racial, when, in fact, the opposite is true. Obama prepped and allowed a foreign dignitary, President Calderon of Mexico, to trash the United States of America on the floor of a Joint Session of Congress, while the radical left congressional members gave him a standing ovation, including AG Holder and HS Napolitano.

He has a lot of nerve to lecture us, while his own country has far more stringent laws, and whose own country is in turmoil. Thank God for Senator McClintock, who did not let this attack go unanswered.

Americans are desperate to reverse this train wreck towards socialism, but in their desperation, conservatives are becoming unraveled. This cannot happen, or we are surely looking at an endless term of Obamanites. Rather than looking at the mainstream media's affliction towards conservatives, we should focus on the positive and concentrate on what to do between now and this coming November's critical elections. Let's not put the cart before the horse, or count our chickens before they're hatched.

We will get there, but we cannot run amuck. Ann Coulter writes her take on the primaries in World Net Daily. She is always good for a picker-upper:


GOP on Track to Snatch Defeat From Jaws of Victory
by Ann Coulter, May 20, 2010

Republican consultants are doing a wonderful job raising expectations sky-high for the November elections, so that now, even if Republicans do smashingly well, it will look like a defeat (and an across-the-board endorsement of Obama's agenda). Thanks, Republicans!

That's what happened in the 1998 congressional elections, nearly foiling Clinton's impeachment. It's what happened to the Conservative Party in Britain a week ago. And that's what happened this week in the 12th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, formerly represented by Rep. John Murtha.

Note to Republicans: Whenever possible, victory parties should be held after the election, not before it.

The result of the election in Murtha's old district on Tuesday was that the rabidly anti-Obamacare, pro-life, pro-gun candidate won! Yippee!

But the news on Wednesday morning was that the election "dealt a blow to Republicans," as the New York Times reported.

The reason the Times' description was not utter madness (in violation of New York Times' official policy) is because the anti-Obamacare, pro-life, pro-gun candidate was a Democrat, and, for the past two months, every Republican on TV has been predicting a Republican victory in Murtha's district.

Thanks to all the happy talk, if the Republican actually had won, it would have been Page 16 news. But when the Democrat won, it seemed like an against-all-odds, come-from-behind Hoosiers victory!

Why were Republicans predicting victory in a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1? Given a choice between two candidates who both hate Obamacare, why would lifelong Democrats not vote for the Democrat?

Republicans are playing the same raised-expectations game with the November elections. Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner is ludicrously predicting Republicans will pick up 100 seats in the House in November. Newt Gingrich puts the figure at an equally insane (and weirdly precise) 78. He also predicts the Cubs will win 132 games this season and six games will be rained out.

Keep it up, Republicans, and I'm going to keep naming names. I have Nexis.

For more than half a century, the average midterm pickup for the party out of power has been 24 seats.

Your job, Republicans, is not to go on Fox News and whisper sweet nothings in conservatives' ears. Your job is to repeal the Obama agenda. Raising expectations so high that a 30-seat Republican pickup will seem like a loss is not helping.

Moreover, we're not going to pick up any seats this November if Republicans keep chumming around with the Democrats' pals on Wall Street.

Roughly since the Harding administration, Wall Street has overwhelmingly favored Democrats. According to a recent report from ABC News, for example, the five largest hedge funds gave "almost all their donations to Democrats."

For the past year, the Democrats' Wall Street BFFs have had lower public approval ratings than Hitler. (When I say "Hitler," I don't mean Dick Cheney or George W. Bush; I actually mean Adolf Hitler.) While Hitler continues to enjoy great personal popularity, there is a growing dissatisfaction with his policies.

How could Republicans possibly screw that up? We try harder.

No sooner had the news come out that Goldman Sachs (Joseph Goebbels in this metaphor) had given Obama an astronomical $1 million in campaign donations, than Republican John Boehner decided that this was the time to suck up to Wall Street! So Boehner flew to New York to meet with Wall Street bankers and ask them to be Republicans' friends.

Boehner is like the guy who just got raped in prison and doesn't know what happened to him. Hey – what was that? Should I have thanked the guy?

As Pat Caddell says, Democrats are whores, but they expect to be paid; Republicans' names are scrawled on the bathroom wall: "For a good time, call the GOP!"

As depressing as it is to watch the Republican Party dive headlong off a cliff, at least we have Dick Blumenthal.

Connecticut's attorney general, pompous, freakishly ambitious, self-righteous, hold-a-press-conference-every-day Blumenthal, was a shoo-in to take Chris Dodd's Senate seat this fall.

After all, he was a Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star and Purple Heart winner from his days as a four-star general in Vietnam. (And captain of the Harvard swim team to boot!)

But now we find out from a front-page article in the New York Times that, despite Blumenthal's repeated references to serving "in Vietnam" – he was never in Vietnam. He got five draft deferments and then joined an elite unit of the Marine Reserves to avoid going to war, serving in their heroic "Toys for Tots" brigade.

He also wasn't on the Harvard swim team. (Oddly enough, though, the story Blumenthal likes to tell about owning a necklace of human ears? That one's actually true.)

Blumenthal may as well have shown up for a press conference in a dress. Suddenly, Connecticut is in play!

Naturally, therefore, Republicans are planning on running a World Wrestling Entertainment "impresario" against Blumenthal. Yes, in Connecticut ... a state that is among the wealthiest and most highly educated in the nation ... a state that isn't Minnesota. The average Nutmegger doesn't even know what a turnbuckle is, and that includes me.

Republicans could run Rob Simmons, a Connecticut legislator with a distinguished record of service in the House of Representatives, the CIA, and as a Yale political science professor – who actually did serve in Vietnam, winning two Bronze Stars and retiring as a colonel.

But defeat is so close! Republicans can almost taste the bitterness of yet another crushing loss!


Ann Coulter, well-known for her TV appearances as a political analyst, is an attorney and author. Catch her most recent book GUILTY: LIBERAL 'VICTIMS' AND THEIR ASSAULT ON AMERICA, now in paperback, here.

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"