Category Archives: Republican Party

Catholics are leaving the Democratic Party

It seems that every day, we are inundated by bad news, including posts published on FOTM.

It gets depressing.

But never fear! I bring you a piece of good news for a refreshing change!

Though U.S. Catholics are not a monolithic voting bloc, their votes are very important because in election after election, Catholics consistently voted the way that the majority in the election voted. In other words, the Catholic vote is a swing vote.

But the term “Catholic Democrats” should be and is an oxymoron. Despite church teachings on the sanctity of (heterosexual) marriage and on abortion being an un-negotiable “intrinsic evil,” too many American Catholics are and vote Democrat. Even worse, they remained Democrats despite their party openly and publicly denying God three times at the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

But that is beginning to change. Catholics, especially white Catholics, are leaving the Democratic Party.

Hallelujah!

~Éowyn

Armor of God I can do all things through Christ

From California Catholic Daily, March 19, 2015:

It’s one of the central contradictions of American politics: that there’s no such thing as the “Catholic vote,” yet the Catholics vote still matters.

There’s no “Catholic vote” in terms of Catholics representing an electoral bloc that votes according to what their bishops tell them, or in lockstep with the tenets of their religion. Yet winning Catholic voters has been essential to almost every presidential victory in modern times. And the defection of Catholics voters has played a role in some of the most consequential congressional turnovers in recent history — from 1994 to 2014 — making Catholics the ultimate swing voters. And for Democrats, that could be bad news.

While Catholics have been swing voters since Richard Nixon’s second term, white Catholics are now identifying as Republican by historic margins. According to the most recent polling from the Pew Research Center, 53 percent of white Catholics now favor the GOP, versus 39 percent who favor the Democrats—the largest point spread in the history of the Pew poll. And for the first time, white Catholics are more Republican than the voting group usually considered the ultimate Republicans: white Protestants (a designation that includes both mainline and evangelical Protestants).

These are ominous signs for the Democrats, evincing a new and growing allegiance with the Republican Party that has long-term implications.

So why are white Catholics abandoning the Democratic Party? There are some long-term trends at play. Steve Krueger, head of the group Catholic Democrats, notes that conservative bishops have been beating the war drums since the George W. Bush administration, even going so far in some cases as to argue that “good” Catholics can’t vote for Democrats because of their support for abortion rights and, more recently, same-sex marriage — which has resulted in an increased politicization of the church.

Stephen Schneck of Catholic University’s Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies has noted that there’s been a certain “distillation” of the Catholic vote as a record number of presumably more liberal-leaning Catholics — some one-third of those raised Catholic — have left the faith altogether. “More and more of those who remain are those who actively choose to embrace the church and its teachings,” he wrote.

But neither of these trends explains why white Catholics have abandoned the Democratic Party so suddenly and so dramatically. After all, in 2008 Barack Obama managed to keep his margin of loss of white Catholic voters to John McCain to just 5 points. But four years later, he lost the white Catholic vote to Mitt Romney by a stunning 19 points.

Krueger points to the Catholic bishop’s demonization in 2011 of the “contraceptive mandate” in the Affordable Care Act, and their subsequent ginning up of the war on “religious liberty” — which was joined by elements of the religious right and fused with its war on Obamacare — as another factor helping to drive Catholics toward the GOP. And the numbers bear Krueger out. According to Pew, between 2009 and 2014, the number of white Catholics who said the Obama administration — and by inference the Democratic Party — was “unfriendly to religion” more than doubled from 17 percent to 36 percent. 

“The shift in the Catholic vote should really be a wakeup call to the Democrats,” says Krueger. “White Catholics are 18 percent of the electorate and Catholics vote 1 to 2 percentage points above their representation in the overall population. This is a significant voting bloc that now perceives Republicans as being more welcoming to people of faith.”

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz announces presidential campaign, but is he eligible?

This morning, at Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), announced his 2016 presidential campaign.

Ted Cruz at Liberty U., March 23, 2015Ted Cruz, joined by wife Heidi and daughters, announces his presidential campaign at Liberty U., March 23, 2015

Ted Cruz was born on December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada where his parents were working in the oil business as owners of a seismic-data processing firm for oil drillers. Cruz’s parents returned to Houston in 1974. They divorced when Ted was in law school.

While Ted Cruz’s mother, Eleanor, was born and raised in Wilmington, Delaware, in a family of three quarters Irish and one quarter Italian descent, Ted’s father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Ted’s birth.

Rafael Cruz was born in 1939 in Matanzas, Cuba. He fought for Fidel Castro in the Cuban Revolution when he was 14 years old, but claims he “didn’t know Castro was a Communist.” In 1957, 18-year-old Rafael fled Cuba and landed in Austin, to study at the University of Texas, graduating with a degree in mathematics. In 2005, Rafael became a naturalized U.S. citizen. He is a pastor in Carrollton, a suburb of Dallas, Texas.

Article II, Section 1:5 of the United States Constitution says:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So what does “natural born” citizen of the United States mean?

The problem is that the U.S. Constitution does not define the term “natural born citizen” nor is the term found in any existing Federal statute. Although the U.S.-born child of a foreign-citizen parent is a U.S. citizen by modern-day policy, no existing Federal statute declares such a child to be a natural born citizen.

Stephen Tonchen, in his essay “Presidential Eligibility Tutorial,” presents at least three schools of thought on what “natural born citizen” means:

definition #1: “Natural born citizen” is anyone born in the United States

According to a Congressional Research Service memorandum (April 3, 2009), the weight of legal opinion is that anyone born in the United States, except the child of a foreign diplomat, is a natural born citizen:

The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that “natural born Citizen” means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” including any child born “in” the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country) … [Maskell (2009), p.5]

But the Heritage Foundation points out that “prior to 2009, the U.S. State Department [had] . . . seeds of doubt regarding the legal status, at birth, of children born in the United States, of alien parents who are in the United States temporarily or illegally.”

Definition #2: “Natural born citizen” also means a foreign-born child of U.S.-citizen parents

In 1790, Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, which said:

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.

But James Madison, in 1795, expressed concern that someone might erroneously infer from the 1790 Act that the foreign-born children of American parents actually “are” (not merely “considered as”) natural born citizens.

Sen. John McCain was born on August 29, 1936, at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, to two U.S. citizens, naval officer John S. McCain Jr. and Roberta (Wright) McCain. At that time, the Panama Canal was under U.S. control. In 2008, the U.S. Senate passed Resolution 511 regarding presidential candidate John McCain’s natural born citizenship, but the resolution was nonbinding and had no legal effect.

definition #3: A foreign-born child of a non-U.S. citizen parent cannot be a “natural born citizen”

Then there is the question of whether both the mother and father must be U.S. citizens for their foreign-born child to be considered a “natural born” U.S. citizen:

  • According to federal case law prior to 1898, U.S. citizenship at birth was based on the principle of partus sequitur patrem or offspring follows the status of the father.
  • The Supreme Court in Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884) ruled that a child born on U.S. soil, of a father who owes allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States, is not a U.S. citizen at birth; and that the citizenship of such a child is that of its father, not its place of birth. Consequently, the U.S.-born child of a foreign-citizen father cannot be a natural born citizen.

In 2004, Senate Bill S.2128: Natural Born Citizen Act gave a definition of “natural born citizen”, but it never became law. As of today, there is no Federal statute that explicitly defines who is, and who is not, a natural born citizen. Even if there were such a statute, it would most likely be unconstitutional because Congress does not have the authority to change the meaning of the Constitution by passing a law that redefines a term that the Constitution uses. Only the Supreme Court has the constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has to date refused to specify what “natural born” in Article II of the U.S. Constitution means. Alternatively, a definition of “natural born citizen” can be supplied via a Constitutional Amendment.

Ted Cruz may be considered a “natural born” U.S. citizen according to Definition #2 only if #2 refers to a foreign-born child who has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth.

Ted Cruz is definitely not a “natural born” U.S. citizen under either Definition #1 or Definition #3.

 

Ted Cruz graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1995, so he knows full well the above. And yet it was only after the Dallas Morning News, in August 2013, pointed out that Cruz had dual Canadian-American citizenship that he applied to formally renounce his Canadian citizenship. On May 14, 2014, Cruz ceased being a citizen of Canada.

Now you know why the GOP never contested Barack Obama’s suspect “natural born” citizenship — he who supposedly was born in Honolulu, Hawaii (but document forensics experts say his Hawaii birth certificate is fraudulent) of a U.S. citizen mother but a Kenyan father who was then a subject of Great Britain because Kenya was then a British colony.

See also:

~Éowyn

Texas attorney general: U.S. is heading toward a constitutional crisis because of Obama flouting Congress and courts

Ken Paxton

In an interview on Fox News yesterday, Ken Paxton, the attorney general of the State of Texas, was asked whether America is heading toward “a constitutional crisis” because of Obama’s total disregard for Congress and now the courts. (The segment begins at the 2:55 mark in the Fox News video, here.)

Paxton replied:

“I think we are. If you think about what’s going on here — the President is violating federal law, the U.S. Constitution, which is going past what Congress is supposed to be doing, and now we’ve got the administration in court not being forthcoming about they’re supposed to be forthcoming about. We definitely have a huge issue here related to whether the Obama administration is going to follow the Constitution, and then once they get into court, whether they’re going to tell the truth.”

Paxton’s stunning remark was precipitated by Obama’s latest “F-you” to the court, specifically to Andrew Hanen, the federal judge who is single-handedly doing the job of the useless Congress by standing up to Obama’s reckless amnesty.

Judge Andrew Hanen

Judge Andrew Hanen

On Feb. 16, 2015, U.S. District Judge Hanen issued a preliminary injunction to temporarily block Obama’s amnesty so as to give a coalition of 26 states the time they need to pursue a lawsuit to permanently stop the amnesty orders. If the implementation of Obama’s amnesty were not blocked, Hanen reasons, the 26 states will “suffer irreparable harm in this case” because once the millions of illegals obtain amnesty, “the genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle.” (See “Federal judge stops Obama’s executive amnesty for illegals”)

At issue are two executive memoranda signed by Obama last November:

  1. The first memorandum expands eligibility for Obama’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which halts deportations and allows work permits for certain undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children.
  2. The second executive memo, known as DAPA, would extend similar benefits to the parents of U.S. citizens and permanent legal residents.

See also “Obama has issued more executive orders than any U.S. president in history.

Combined, DACA and DAPA could affect as many as 5 million immigrants living in the country illegally. Some estimates are as high as 10 to 12 million illegals.

4 days after Judge Hanen’s order blocking the implementation of Obama’s amnesty, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it would seek an emergency stay of the judge‘s injunction. (See “Obama emergency order to restart amnesty in defiance of federal judge Hanen”)

Hanen responded by denying the DOJ’s request. So the federal government has asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to lift Hanen’s injunction while the case is appealed.

Obama vs. Hanen

 

The latest tussle between Judge Hanen and Obama took place last Thursday, March 19, 2015.

As reported by FoxNews, at a Texas hearing on Obama’s amnesty executive actions, Judge Hanen sharply scolded a DOJ attorney — that the administration had misled Hanen on a key part of the program, for which Hanen fell “like an idiot.” Hanen said he could order sanctions against the administration if he finds the DOJ indeed had misrepresented the facts.

At issue is whether the DOJ had misled the judge into believing that a plank of the Obama amnesty program would not go forward before he made the Feb. 16 ruling to temporarily halt it. The program is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) that gives deportation reprieves (i.e., effective amnesty) to thousands of young illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as “minors.” The problem is that even before Hanen’s ruling on Feb. 16 to block DACA’s implementation, federal officials had already given 3-year reprieves and work permits to more than 108,000 illegal aliens.

Kathleen Hartnett Associate White House Counsel Kathleen Hartnett, a Harvard Law grad like Obama, successfully worked on repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

At the Thursday hearing, Hanen chided DOJ attorney Kathleen Hartnett for telling him at a January hearing before the Feb. 16 injunction was issued that nothing would be happening with regard to DACA until Feb. 18.

“Like an idiot I believed that,” Hanen said.

A flustered Hartnett repeatedly apologized to Hanen for any confusion related to how the reprieves and work permits were granted. “We strive to be as candid as possible. It truly became clear to us there was confusion on this point,” she said.

“Can I trust what the president says? That’s a yes or no question,” Hanen asked.

“Yes your honor,” Hartnett replied.

The coalition of 26 states have asked that Hanen consider issuing sanctions against the Obama administration because, in the words of the coalition’s lead attorney Angela Colmenero (who is also a lawyer with the Texas Attorney General’s Office), DOJ attorneys had made “representations (that) proved not to be true or at a minimum less than forthcoming.”

Obama’s DOJ lawyer Hartnett insists “There is absolutely no basis for sanctions here. The government is absolutely trying to do the right thing.”

Hanen said he would issue a ruling “promptly” on what action, if any, he will take against the Justice Department.

See also:

~Éowyn

Colorado Democrats support infanticide

On March 3, 2015, Democrats on a Colorado state House panel defeated a pro-life bill — HB 1112: Born Alive Infant Protection Act — that would ensure babies who survive failed abortions receive appropriate medical care and protection.

That means those Democrats, like Barack and Michelle Obama, favor INFANTICIDE.

See “Michelle Obama wants to legalize partial-birth abortion” and “Obama is evil

baby

Steven Ertelt reports for LifeNews that in a party-line vote of 7 Democrats v. 6 Republicans, the Colorado House’s Public Health Care and Human Services Committee killed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, HB 1112.

Leading pro-abortion groups NARAL and Planned Parenthood encouraged the Democrats on the panel to reject the bill, by claiming babies are not born alive after abortions in Colorado.

That is a lie.

In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recorded 1,298 cases of infant death in the U.S. due to “Other perinatal conditions,” which includes ICD-10 category P96.4, death subsequent to a failed “termination of pregnancy.” Put in simpler English, that means babies had been born alive after “botched” abortions, but were left alone in a room, to slowly die from starvation and neglect.

born alive left to die

“If passed, HB 1112 would have required abortionists to provide medical care for a child born alive during a failed abortion. Currently in Colorado, there are no state requirements instructing an abortionist to provide any type of medical attention to the infant,” says Sarah Zagorski of Colorado Citizens for Life. “It is incredibly disappointing that members of the Committee failed to pass this common-sense bill that would protect infants who survive failed abortions. The infants that would have been protected under HB 1112 are viable babies in the second and third trimester of pregnancy and deserve the highest quality medical care possible.:

In the United States, 30 states have laws similar to HB 1112 and the legislation has received bipartisan support.

In 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law a federal version of this pro-life legislation, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (PBABA). That is the same bill that when he was an Illinois State senator, Barack Obama had thrice voted against. Imagine how heartless and soul-less he must be to vote again and again for infanticide.

If you live in Colorado, please contact your representative and if they opposed the legislation, let them know you are disappointed that they voted against protecting innocent infants.  Additionally, if your representative voted in favor of the bill please call and thank them for defending life.

Here are the bad guys – the 7 members of the Colorado House committee, all Democrats, who voted in favor of infanticide by voting against HB 1112:

  1. Rep. Dianne Primavera, Chair (D-23) – Email: dianne.primavera.house@state.co.us; Phone: 303-866-4667
  2. ​​​​Rep. Jonathan Singer, Vice-Chair (D-11) – jonathan.singer.house@state.co.us; 303-866-2780
  3. Rep. Dominick Moreno (D-32) – dominick.moreno.house@state.co.us; 303-866-2964
  4. Rep. Jessie Danielson (D-24) – jessie.danielson.house@state.co.us; 303-866-5522
  5. ​​Rep. Max Tyler (D-23) – max@maxtyler.us; 303-866-2951​
  6. ​​Rep. Joann Ginal (D-52) – joann.ginal.house@state.co.us; 303-866-4569
  7. ​​​Rep. Jovan Melton (D-41) ​- jovan.melton.house@state.co.us; 303-866-2919

Here are the good guys — the 6 Colorado House committee members, all Republicans, who voted in favor of HB 1112:

  1. Rep. Kathleen Conti (R-38): kathleen.conti.house@state.co.us; 303-866-2953
  2. Rep. Janak Joshi (R-16): ​janak.joshi.house@state.co.us; 303-866-2937​
  3. Rep. Lang Sias (R-27): ​lang.sias.house@state.co.us; 303-866-2962
  4. Rep. Justin Everett (R-22): justin.everett.house@state.co.us; 303-866-2927
  5. Rep. Lois Landgraf (R-21): lois.landgraf.house@state.co.us; 303-866-2946
  6. Rep. JoAnn Windholz (R-30): joann.windholz.house@state.co.us; 303-866-2945

Note that the good guys are all Republicans, which contradicts the assertion that Republicans are just as bad as Democrats. (See Kelleigh’s post, “Enemies on the Left, False Friends on the Right, Part 1.”) That may be true at the national level in Congress (and even here, it’s a gross and unfair over-generalization), but it is certainly not true at the state and local level.

Those who insist Republicans are just as evil as Democrats must answer this question:

Since the U.S. political and electoral system is structurally set up as an effective two-party system, and since the historical record is that third party movements are signally unsuccessful, what are we to do? 

The challenge before us is how to get rid of the bad Republicans in Congress, especially those in leadership positions.

~Éowyn

We’re going after Congress, the enablers of King Obama

By now, for those with eyes that see, ears that hear, and minds that are clear instead of fogged, it is clear that the American Republic is moribund, our Founders’ vision and careful designs upended without a fight, for we are ruled by a self-anointed king instead of a president who answers to the people or their elected representatives.

And yet the latest polls say Obama still has a 49% approval!

During his first term in the White House, Obama was aided and abetted by a Democrat-controlled Congress, which made possible the passage of Obamacare into law.

Last November’s mid-term elections voted in a substantial Republican majority to the House of Representatives, and a slimmer Republican majority to the Senate. But that means nothing to Obama because months before the mid-term elections, he already had declared that “I will act with or without Congress.”

Obama as king

On January 15, 2014, King Obama told Senate Democrats that he plans to use his executive authority to act when Congress stands in his way, that is, without the second branch of the U.S. government. On January 28, 2014, at his 5th State of the Union address, King Obama pronounced to the entire country:

wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do. (Cheers, applause.) … I’ll act on my own ….”

So much for the Founders’ institutionalization of a separation of powers via dividing government into three branches of government — the executive, legislative, and judicial — so that the branches would check and balance each other. In so doing, the Founders believed, government would be prevented from becoming tyrannical, and individual liberty would be ensured and preserved.

True to his words, Obama proceeded to act without Congress in one executive action (executive orders, executive memoranda, presidential determinations, presidential notices) after another, the most malicious of which include:

All of which has already made Obama’s executive actions more numerous than those of any U.S. president in history.

To all that, Congress willingly and pliantly ceded their constitutional authority by doing nothing.

It is time for the American people to turn our wrath on Congress.

Obama, Boehner & McConnell

On Saturday, February 28, 2015, six ordinary Americans went to the local offices of their respective senator or representative and served them with an “Intent to Repossess” their offices, paid for by taxpayers. The six members of Congress are:

  • Senator Robert Casey (D-PA)
  • Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
  • Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
  • Representative Diane Black (R-TN)
  • Representative John Ratcliffe (R-TX)
  • Representative Ann Wagner (R-MO)

The Intent reads:

We The People of the sovereign and united States of America, the ultimate sovereigns of the elected tenant of this office (‘Tenant’), which Tenant is bound by law to serve and obey, hereby give formal notice to Tenant that we intend to repossess the Constitution for the United States of America.

  1. We intend to hold Tenant, our sworn public servant, to the letter of the Constitution.
  2. We will offer to Tenant opportunity to cease aiding and abetting organized crime benefitting industry under the guise of performing legislative duties, by Tenant formally agreeing to join the AmericaAgain! Good Guys roster.
  3. We will offer Tenant immunity from criminal prosecution by formally agreeing to support, co-sponsor, and/or vote for the 20 AmericaAgain! reform laws drafted and sponsored by We The People.
  4. Should Tenant refuse to cooperate, instead continuing to aid and abet violations of the U.S. Constitution in collusion with industry and with corrupt executive and judicial branch servants — We The People intend to pursue multi-count felony indictment in the courts of this Sovereign State against defendant Tenant, via the AmericaAgain! Indictment Engine™.

The visits to the offices of Casey, et al., were the second batch of visits by members of a new group, AmericaAgain!, founded by David Zuniga, author of This Bloodless Liberty. On January 19, 2015, AmericaAgain! had visited the local offices of:

  • Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
  • Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
  • Rep. Scott Peters (D-La Jolla, 52nd District)
  • Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ, 2nd District)
  • Rep. Grace Ming (D-NY, 6th District)

America Again!

At each of the senators’ and representatives’ offices in 11 cities, the AmericaAgain! delegates served them with the Intent to Repossess and a letter informing them about the AmericaAgain! campaign which you can read here. The delegates called on the 5 senators and 6 representatives to sign a public statement of agreement in principle that states:

  • Whereas, the People themselves are the highest governmental authority in America and according to the opening words of the Constitution, the only human power over that law; and
  • Whereas, I have been elected by the sovereign citizens of my State or U.S. congressional district to serve and represent them by obeying and supporting the U.S. Constitution; and
  • Whereas, all three branches of federal government for generations have engaged in violations of that supreme Law of the Land; and
  • Whereas, the People’s failure to enforce that supreme law in no way constrains them from taking up its enforcement at any time they see fit; and
  • Whereas, the criminal courts of the sovereign States of this republic must arrest felony crimes perpetrated by residents of their State – whether perpetrated by omission, commission, negligence, abuse of office, ignorance, or other condition – and must apply such sanctions as will address said conditions of perpetrators; and
  • Whereas, I have no desire to ignore, enable, legitimize, or cover up such crimes committed by Congress, however convenient or cherished the resulting funds may be to the recipients; and
  • Whereas, I am aware that many federal laws affecting industry and regulatory bodies have been, and are, written by operatives to favor the affected industry, and often voted for by legislators who have not considered — or even read — the bill;
  • Therefore, I support in principle the 20 legislative reforms put forth by AmericaAgain!, publicly asserting my intention to support such laws drafted by the People as presented to me for co-sponsorship, consideration, or vote, and I will make no attempt to amend, attach riders or earmarks to, or impede the expeditious passage of said reform bills through calendar and committee procedures, as that would constitute obstruction of the sovereign right of the People and States to enforce the U.S. Constitution.

Here’s a video explaining AmericaAgain!

So far, not one of the 5 senators and 6 representatives, whom the people had elected to Washington, DC, has the decency to respond. But AmericaAgain! vows to continue until every member of Congress is served notice.

To join this noble campaign to take back our country, visit AmericaAgain! (or go to AmericaAgainNow.com).

H/t Freedom Outpost 

See also “America’s Bipartisan Ruling Class vs. the People.”

~Éowyn

Tea Party calls conservative talk host Mark Levin “The Great Enabler” of Obama

Mark Levin

Mark Levin, The Great One?

By Dwight Kehoe, editor of TPath.org (Tea Party Advocate)
March 4, 2015

Several years ago Mark Levin, tagged by Hannity as The Great One, was offered and then accepted a full time gig doing a “conservative” talk show on the ABC radio network and affiliates.  He began that job not as the Great One, but as the Great Enabler.  He may have been told that it was not in his best interest nor the best interest of the network to discuss the eligibility of Barack Islam Obama relating to Article II or any aspect of his credentials which might actually prevent an illegal presidency.

Can we prove that he was given this conditional requirement?   No, but there are numerous instances from many ex-employees of the national radio and TV networks who have denied that order was ever given to them, until that is, they no longer worked for them.  These personalities fervently  refused to admit this ever happens.  One quite famous individual who also denied this fact while working for FOX has now admitted that he was prevented from speaking of several issues.

Even though this gentleman has not admitted that the “off limit subject” related to Obama, coincidentally enough this guy finds himself in the same sinking ship of fools as the Great Enabler. Both are now struggling to keep their integrity afloat, frantically bailing the birther issue and the messengers of it, overboard.

As the evidence against Obama becomes more pronounced, so too does the boiling anger of the Great Enabler which he directs at those who have been warning this country about Obama from the very beginning.  Those who have refused to be cowed, refused to forsake the Constitution and the rule of law have now become a bigger enemy to Mark Levin, than the illegal usurper.

We can be fair and suppose that when Levin agreed to ignore these issues, if he indeed did agree, that early on he was too busy impressing Hannity with his greatness to have had the time to look into the reality of the Obama saga.  Then, after having adopted and implemented such a nasty stance, it would have taken a true Great One to admit he was wrong.  But alas, the Great Enabler prevailed.

He understands now that his early acquiescence and his subsequent denial and cover up will implicate him, the self proclaimed constitutional scholar, as one of many selfish actors who have aided and abetted the destruction of our country. He smothers his personal guilt under the cover of belittlement of those who know he has failed us.

Once again this past week, after exiling a patriot form the call in phone line, the Great Enabler said this:

“You have to call this show about the birth certificate? Oh that’s been really effective. It has failed in every court. The birth certificate…with all the problems we have with this President, that’s all you have?”

That statement is of course as ignorant and deceptive as any Obama could have uttered.  Actually however, it was not a statement, but a series of questions.  He offered them rhetorically and with his typical sarcasm.  They must have been rhetorical because he hung up on the patriot before he could answer.

So, Mr. Levin, we would like to take a minute and answer them and as with many questions like that, yours have elicited several questions of their own.  No one will hang up on you before you can answer them.  It will take courage to honestly answer, so we hope you don’t mind if we don’t hold our breath while waiting.

First we answer your questions:

Q – “You have to call this show about the birth certificate?
A – Are you not the supposed Constitutional expert?  Who should I have called, Eric Holder?

Q – “That’s really been effective?”
A –  No it has not been effective because everyone in this country who could have made a difference and made it effective, put their careers ahead of the future of  America.

Q- “With all the problems we have with this (President/ Usurper), that’s all you have?
A – Real world to the Great Enabler,  if you and your ilk had of done your job, worked with the Birther Patriots, all of the problems this country has now, would never have been.  Barack Islam Obama would be back with his communist  gangster comrades in Chicago and not in Washington DC endangering the entire world.

Now a few questions of our own:

1.  Are you not aware that the Founding Fathers, after much discussion and communication between George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Jay, amended Article II to include the  “Natural Born Citizen” requirement?

2.  Have you not read any of the Federalist Papers and other writings where they stated many times that legal terms they use were based upon Vattell’s work, The Law of Nations?

3.  Did you never take the time to find out that, according to the Founders, Obama would not qualify as a Natural Born Citizen, regardless of where you “think” he was born?

4.  Did you ever consider looking at all those court cases you claim have been adjudicated in favor of Obama?  Did you not see that none of them ruled or affirmed Obama’s eligibility on fact, but supposition by the judges?

5.  Did you notice that all the cases otherwise ruled, that those bringing the case had no standing?  No standing is the answer all progressive judges use when they can’t produce evidence to support a decision they have been ordered to make.  No standing now  describes your standing with real constitutional conservatives.

6.  Did you happen to notice that there are errors on Obama’s birth certificate which can only be explained by it being a forgery?  The  youngsters who dominate the “basement underwear brigade”*, those who did the forging, made errors in terms and words which are common today, but never used back in 1961.

7. Did you happen to note when you reviewed Obama’s Birth Certificate that it states the name of the hospital as it is called today, even though it went by another name in 1961?

8. If you were running for President and needed to show a birth certificate, would you have one forged, which could possibly send you and the forgers to prison, if you had a real one?

There are Mr. Levin, many, many more questions we could ask you.  As with these, the answers will not sit well with the image of  The Great One.

Finally, if you are a Constitutional Scholar, then you are also a coward.  It’s impossible, with your record, to be one and not the other.

See also:

~Éowyn

Black neurosurgeon Ben Carson enters 2016 presidential race, but is he the right man?

Ever since his stunning rebuke of Barack Obama at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., with the POS listening and seated close by, conservatives have clamored for black neurosurgeon Dr. Benjamin Solomon Carson, 63, to run for the presidency.

This morning, Carson tweeted that he is throwing his hat in the race by forming an exploratory committee, which means he’s soliciting campaign donations.

Ben Carson

Before we get all enthusiastic about a Ben Carson presidency, we should know about the following:

1. Carson is for gun control

On March 1, 2013 on the Glenn Beck Show, Carson was asked by Beck if people should be allowed to own semi-automatic weapons. Carson responded: “It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it.”

You can watch and listen to a video of Carson saying that by going to Real Clear Politics.

2. Carson spoke for a medical-supplement maker accused of false advertising

As National Review‘s Jim Geraghty points out, as recently as a year ago in March 2014, Carson appeared in a video for Mannatech, Inc., a Texas-based medical supplement maker. Smiling into the camera, he extolled the benefits of the Mannatech’s “glyconutrient” products, claiming they are “natural diet as a medicine or as a mechanism for maintaining health” and that the products would “restore” the “healthy food” that “God had made for us.”

Note: The “manna” of Mannatech probably is an allusion to the biblical “manna” or food from Heaven.

Carson’s interactions with Mannatech date back 10 years to 2004, when he was a speaker at the company’s annual conferences, MannaFest and MannaQuest. Since then, Carson had spoken at Mannatech conferences in 2011 and 2013, and extolled its “glyconutrients” in a PBS special as recently as last year in which he again praised “glyconutrients.”

In 1993, Samuel L. Caster founded Mannatech, mere months before Congress passed the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, which greatly loosened restrictions on how supplement makers could market their products. Mannatech uses many of the same tactics previously described in lawsuits against Eagle Shield, Caster’s first company.

In November 2004, the mother of a 3-year-old child with Tay-Sachs disease who died after being treated with Mannatech products filed suit against the company in Los Angeles Superior Court, seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent misrepresentation, and conspiracy to commit fraud. The suit alleged that:

  • A Mannatech sales associate wrote an article in the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association in August 1997, explicitly claiming that Mannatech’s supplements had improved the boy’s condition, even though the boy had, by that time, died.
  • The associate also shared naked photos of the boy with hundreds of people at a Mannatech demonstration seminar. The boy’s mother had provided the associate with the photos as evidence of her son’s weight gain, with an understanding that they’d be kept confidential. In March 2004, the suit claimed, Mannatech was still using the photos in promotional materials on its website, “with the clear inference that [the boy] was alive and doing well some seven years after his actual death.”

In 2007, three years after Ben Carson’s first dealings with Mannatech, Texas attorney general Greg Abbott sued the company and its founder Caster, charging them with orchestrating an unlawful marketing scheme that exaggerated their products’ health benefits via:

  • Testimonials from individuals claiming that they’d used Mannatech products to overcome serious diseases and ailments, including autism, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and life-threatening heart conditions.
  • A CD entitled “Back from the Brink” that “provided example after example of how ‘glyconutrients’ (i.e., Mannatech’s products) cured, treated, or mitigated diseases including but not limited to toxic shock syndrome, heart failure, asthma, arthritis, Lou Gehrig’s Disease, Attention Deficit Disorder, and lung inflammation.”
  • According to a 20/20 investigative report in 2007, Mannatech sales associates hawked the company’s signature drug, Ambrotose, which “costs at least $200 a month,” as “a miracle cure that could fix a broad range of diseases, from cancer to multiple sclerosis and AIDS.”

In 2009, the state of Texas reached a settlement with Mannatech. The company paid $4 million in restitution to Texas customers while admitting no wrongdoing. Caster agreed to a $1 million civil penalty and a five-year ban on serving as an officer, director, or employee of the company. Henceforth, Mannatech employees were prohibited from saying “directly or indirectly” that their products can “cure, treat, mitigate or prevent any disease,” and banned the use of customers’ testimonials making those claims.

But Carson’s interactions with Mannatech continued until at least March 2014, almost five years after the suit was settled, and a decade after the company’s marketing practices had first begun to come into question.

When asked about Carson’s appearances for Mannatech, his business manager Armstrong Williams says “I don’t know that he’s ever had a compensated relationship with Mannatech. All we know is that the Washington Speaker’s Bureau, which booked hundreds of speaking engagements for him through the year, booked these engagements. He had no idea who these people are. They’re booked through the speakers’ bureau. The question should be asked to the Washington Speakers Bureau, when did they have a relationship with Mannatech, because Dr. Carson never had one.” (At Washington Speakers Bureau, Carson is listed as a level-6 speaker, meaning his fee is more than $40,000 per speech.) Williams adds that Carson won’t personally be answering any questions about his interactions with the company, “because that is the decision that has been made.”

Writing for VDare, Jim Fulford warns:

This longing for a Republican Magic Negro has already given us the Herman Cain fiasco in the last Presidential cycle and the far more damaging Michael Steele RNC Chairmanship disaster after Obama’s first election–which allowed a scandal so deep that his [Steele’s] mentor the disgusting Reince Priebus had to grab the job himself to cover it up.

At the same time, however, I recall the Dr. Ben Carson at that 2013 National Prayer Breakfast — a cultural and economic conservative, and a Christian.

At that breakfast meeting, Dr. Carson began his keynote speech by quoting from the Bible. Then he excoriated the tyranny of political correctness, calling it a “dangerous” and “horrible thing” that had led to such ridiculous fears as wishing people “Merry Christmas.” Carson said political correctness muzzles us into a false “unanimity of thought” and “unanimity of expression” that prevents us from talking about the important things.

Carson also bemoaned the moral decay of Americans, and warned us of a Rome-like fate. Then, in front of Obama sitting just feet from the podium, Carson confronted the issue of America’s debt and current fiscal policy. He said:

“Our deficit is a big problem. Think about it — and our national debt — $16 and a half trillion dollars…. What about our taxation system — so complex there is no one that can possibly comply with every jot and tittle. When I pick up my Bible, you know what I see? I see the fairest individual in the universe — God — and he’s given us a system. It’s called tithe.”

To conclude, we don’t need and shouldn’t be looking for a political messiah to save us. We should carefully examine Dr. Ben Carson, as we should with every presidential candidate. Being human, they are all flawed. What is important is that we find out those flaws before jumping onto their presidential choo choo train with eyes wide shut.

~Éowyn