Tag Archives: GOP

We Need a Businessman in the White House

Too Many Career Politicians and Not Enough Businessmen In Washington.

After seeing the disastrous fiasco that has taken place over the last two and a half years and over the course of other administrations, I’ve become a firm believer that career or professional politicians are absolutely ruining this country. After watching Herman Cain mop the floor with the other GOP candidates at the first Republican debate, I say a successful businessman is the way to go.

Herman Cain has proven, at least to me that he has what it takes and it make no difference to me that he has not held public office before, in fact that is one of his endearing factors. He is someone who brings a fresh perspective to the mix. He is a decision maker, he has been an executive and he has been successful. He has managed people and turned a failing business around, he is in my opinion the best choice for chief executive.

Let’s face it, the founding father’s were all businessmen of one type or another and they penned the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. They took an idea, a dream and turned it into an independent nation, the most powerful nation on earth.

Herman Cain is a relative unknown now but in the months to follow I hope his name will be on everybody’s lips, we need a man like him to turn things around and with the exit of Trump and Huckabee and with Gingrich, Romney and Paul imploding things are looking better for this true Conservative.

~Tom in NC


Tell House Conservatives What’s On Your Mind

The radical cynics who insist elections don’t make a difference and that two main political parties are two peas in a pod probably didn’t vote in last November’s mid-term elections either. Even without their votes, the November 2nd elections did make a difference. All you have to do is look at what the Republican-led House of Representatives has been doing.

Here’s what the GOP-led 112th U.S. House of Representatives has done, since January this year:

In truth, the deal that the House made with the White House to cut a paltry $38 billion from the 2011 fiscal year federal budget turned out to be a major disappointment. All the more reason for us to let House conservatives know what we want them to do. Go HERE to take their survey!

H/t beloved fellow Tina.


Dear tina,

I want to share with you some of the early results of the Spring Issues Survey we sent out earlier this week. Thank you to all those who participated, your input helps us as we start early planning for the next round of elections in 2012. (If you haven’t had a chance to take the survey yet, it is six simple questions that will only take a moment of your time!)
We asked you which two issues facing Congress and our nation right now are the MOST important to you. Unsurprisingly, over 90% of you said that “reducing government spending and balancing the budget” is your #1 priority. Spending by our government is wildly out of control, and despite what Obama and Congressional leaders seem to think- the American people are paying attention!
According to 75% of you the second most important task facing us is repealing Obamacare. The unrestrained spending and unashamed market manipulation contained in the healthcare package Democrats rammed through Congress last year represents not only a tremendous threat to our freedom, but is a looming iceberg for our national economy.
Friends, I agree with you! Those are the two top priorities of all my fellow conservatives in the House.
In answer to the other questions in our survey we found:
  • 76% of you identify as pro-life
  • 45% said that the most important trait for a Congressional candidate is “Experience cutting the size of government,” followed by being a Tea Party member (29%).
  • 77% of respondents said that the federal government’s debt ceiling should not be raised. Another 22% allowed for it to be raised only as part of a larger agreement to significantly cut spending.
Again, thank you to those of you who took the survey. If you missed the first email, but wish to participate, please CLICK HERE to take the survey now.


Patrick McHenry
United States Congressman
Honorary Chairman, House Conservatives F

Why Do Conservative Elites Avoid Obama Eligibility?

The GOP honchos, beginning with John McCain in 2008 and continuing to new House Speaker John Boehner, avoid it.

Conservative columnists and talking heads such as Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly not just avoid it, they go out of their way to mock those who don’t. The latter chickened out when he wasted a golden opportunity to ask Obama about his elusive long-form birth certificate (and other documents such as his kindergarten and college records) in their recent sit-down interview.

When even an Obama worshipper such as Chris “thrill-up-my-leg” Matthews calls on O to release his original long-form birth certificate, it grows ever more curious why conservative elites avoid it with that proverbial 10-foot pole. I don’t buy the excuse that it’s because they fear a civil war would result should the Fraud be found to be constitutionally ineligible for the presidency.

Among national talk radio hosts, only Rush Limbaugh and to a lesser extent Sean Hannity talk about it, which is most strange because, as WorldNetDaily publisher Joseph Farah points out, the Obama eligibility issue is not just all-important, it is a winning issue. Go figure!


The humongous elephant in the room everyone is denying

Why eligibility is a winning issue

By Joseph Farah – WorldNetDaily – February 03, 2011

Conservatives make me laugh – and cry, sometimes.

From the very beginning of WND’s relentless coverage of the eligibility issue, there were many very high-profile conservatives in public office and the media who discouraged any focus on it.

They whispered and muttered that it was not a “winning issue.”

They wrung their hands in worriment over the possibility that Barack Obama would pull the rug out from under the pursuit by pulling his long-form birth certificate out of his hat – making us look ridiculous for ever asking for it.

They even went so far as to suggest the whole controversy was a “trap” being set for those who went near it.

They warned that Obama is waiting for me to get out far enough on a limb so he can saw it off.

They were even afraid that Obama might indeed be ineligible and the nation would face a constitutional crisis as a result.

I didn’t listen to them then, and I don’t listen to them now.


It’s very simple.

There is no doubt, none whatsoever, that Barack Obama is hiding something about his origins and his life leading to the White House.

It has been two-and-a-half years since serious questions first arose about his birthplace, his parentage, his adoption, his travels, his college years, his early education and so on. When we began pursuing the question of his constitutional eligibility, no one else was covering it or taking it seriously. In fact, we were pleasantly surprised in June of 2009 when we conducted our first scientific public-opinion poll on the issue to learn that 50 percent of the public had even heard about the controversy – and that half of those were skeptical about Obama’s claims.

We were amazed at how many people were aware of the story with only one news source covering it.

The most recent poll, conducted by CNN last summer, showed 58 percent of Americans skeptical of Obama’s claims and that the entire world knows about the controversy – and that’s with practically the entire media establishment devoted to denying there is any story worth covering.

How is that not a winning issue?

Yet, most conservatives are still hiding in the tall grass on this issue, afraid of their own shadows and being outsmarted by their political opponents.

I have always looked at this issue through the eyes of a newsman. It is the job of the news media to hold politicians accountable to the law and the standards of our society.

The Constitution requires the president to be a “natural born citizen,” and the very first piece of evidence one would need to show to establish that fact is a long-form birth certificate – and actual eyewitness account of a birth taking place in a specific place, at a specific time, by specific parents.

So we asked for that specific document. We couldn’t get it. Obama wouldn’t release it. Nobody in government, no controlling legal authority has ever seen it as part of a process of evaluating Obama’s eligibility.

Even as a rookie cub reporter 35 years ago, I would have recognized that as a cover-up – a deliberate one. Somebody clearly had something to hide.

It’s amazing to me today, even as this story begins breaking out beyond WND, that practically no one in the media sees what I and my merry band of WND reporters and editors see. The American people get it. But the media and even most conservative political activists don’t. Most Republican officials are afraid of it.

But what could possibly be wrong with asking for the documentation that is absolutely necessary to meeting the constitutional test?

How could it backfire if Obama actually produces the proof? That’s all we’re asking for. That’s all we ever asked for. I would consider it a major victory if Obama produced what I have been asking him to produce for two-and-a-half years. I would even be relieved to find out that the man occupying the White House is indeed constitutionally eligible for the office he has held for the last two years.

I still don’t understand what is the downside of demanding something so innocent and so essential to constitutional governance as proof of eligibility.

I’m not afraid Obama will produce what I’m asking for. I’m afraid he won’t. That’s something very scary. It is already a constitutional crisis when the president can assume office and make profound changes in the direction of the country without ever proving he is constitutionally eligible.

Why won’t he produce it?

Americans are asking this question more frequently than ever before. It has become something of a national joke. But it’s not a joking matter. It’s a matter of national security and constitutional integrity.

Now that several states are ready to approve legislation requiring future presidential candidates to prove their eligibility before getting on the ballot, we are closer than ever to learning whether Obama can meet that test.

If he seeks re-election, he can. If he doesn’t, he can’t.

If he doesn’t and can’t, I dare someone to tell me our hard work and dedication on this issue wasn’t worthwhile and productive.

Partisan Disharmony Is an American Tradition

The GOP has a unique talent of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Republicans scored a historic victory in the midterm elections last November 2, winning a majority in the House of Representatives, more seats in the Senate, majorities in countless state legislatures, and many state governorships. Less than 3 months later, that sweeping victory is forgotten and the same old GOP is back, eager to make nice, and cowered by the Left’s outright lies blaming the Tucson murders on “right wing rhetoric.”

Demonrat Chuck Schumer (NY) was paired off with Republican Sen. Tom Coburn (Ok)

The “date night” seating of pairs of Democrats-Republicans at Obama’s State of the Union (SOTU) speech last night was a barf-inducing spectacle. Whose bright idea was that? To Obama’s injunction for bipartisan cooperation, the GOP leaders should have retorted:

“Where was ‘bipartisan cooperation’ when you and your party won the elections in 2008? Why wasn’t there a ‘date night’ display of bipartisan harmony at your 2009 and 2010 SOTU speeches, when the Democrats reigned in Congress?”

Republicans and Conservatives and the TEA party movement (not the same!) have nothing to apologise for. Partisan bickering disagreement and disharmony is nothing less than an American tradition and defines the American national character. As George Will explains in Tea Party Turmoil Echoes America’s Past,” NewsMax, January 24, 2011:

The tone of today’s politics was anticipated and is vindicated by a book published 30 years ago. The late Samuel Huntington’s “American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony” (1981) clarifies why it is a mistake to be alarmed by today’s political excitements and extravagances, a mistake refuted by America’s past.

The “predominant characteristics” of the Revolutionary era, according to Gordon Wood, today’s pre-eminent historian of that period, were “fear and frenzy, the exaggerations and the enthusiasm, the general sense of social corruption and disorder.”

In the 1820s, Daniel Webster said “society is full of excitement.” Of the 1830s, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, “The country is full of rebellion; the country is full of kings. Hands off! Let there be no control and no interference in the administration of this kingdom of me.”

As the 20th century dawned, Theodore Roosevelt found a “condition of excitement and irritation in the popular mind.” In 1920, George Santayana wrote, “America is all one prairie, swept by a universal tornado”…. 

By the time Huntington’s book appeared, American had had four of what he called “periods of creedal passion” — the Revolutionary era (1770s), the Jacksonian era (the 1830s), the Progressive era (1900-1920) and the 1960s. We are now in the fifth.

The American Creed’s values are…the 18th century’s preoccupation with defending liberty against government…”individualistic, democratic, egalitarian, and hence basically anti-government and anti-authority.” The various values “unite in imposing limits on power and on the institutions of government. The essence of constitutionalism is the restraint of governmental power through fundamental law.”

What made the American Revolution a novel event was that Americans did not declare independence because their religion, ethnicity, language, or culture made them incompatible with the British. Rather, it was a political act based on explicit principles.

So in America more than in Europe, nationalism is, Huntington said, “intellectualized”: “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” Who holds them? Americans. Who are Americans? Those who hold those truths to be self-evident.

America is an inherently “disharmonic society” because the ideals of its creed are always imperfectly realized, and always endangered. Government is necessary but, Huntington says, “the distinctive aspect of the American Creed is its anti-government character. Opposition to power and suspicion of government as the most dangerous embodiment of power are the central themes of American political thought.”

…Periods of creedal passion involve returns to first principles — hence the tea partyers orientation to 1773. “Americans,” Huntington believed, “become polarized less over the substance of their beliefs than over how seriously to take those beliefs.” Today, the general conservatism of this center-right country and especially the tea party impulse demand renewed seriousness about the creed’s core skepticism about government. Modern liberalism’s handicap is its unhappiness with this core.

“It has been our fate as a nation,” wrote historian Richard Hofstadter, “not to have ideologies but to be one.” It is an excellent fate, even if — actually, because — the creed periodically, as now, makes America intensely disharmonic.

Obama and the Left’s call for “bipartisan cooperation and harmony” is really their attempt to silence us.  To that, we say:

“Hell no. To be partisan and disharmonious is to an American! Dissent is patriotic.”

The GOP must stand firm and suppress its slavish impulse to make nice with our political enemies who conceal their daggers in their smiling entreaties for “harmony.” Remember what the voters resoundingly told you last November 2. And remember also this:

Just as we walloped the Dems last November, we can and will do the same to you.


112th House to Begin With Reading of U.S. Constitution

Elections really do make a difference.

Last November 2nd, with the power of our vote, a Republican majority was voted into the House of Representatives. In the Senate, though not a majority, their numbers are increased. Not in office yet, the newly elected GOP representatives and senators are already flexing their muscle.

Fulfilling one of their most prominent campaign promises, House Republican leaders unveiled a new rule requiring each bill filed in the House “cite its specific constitutional authority.” Republicans have organized four staff briefings prior to the Jan. 5 start of the 112th Congress to provide guidance on compliance with the new rule. The first session will be Monday at 1 p.m. in the Capitol Visitor Center

Now we learn that Republicans have proposed another most excellent new rule — that the 112th House of Republicans will begin on January 6 with a full reading on the House floor of our country’s founding document!

As reported by Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times on Dec. 23, 2010, ‘We the people’ to open next Congress“:

The goal…is to underscore the limited-government rules the Founders imposed on Congress – and to try to bring some of those principles back into everyday legislating.

“It stems from the debate that we’ve had for the last two years about things like the exercise of authority in a whole host of different areas by the EPA, we’ve had this debate in relation to the health care bill, the cap-and-trade legislation,” said Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte, Virginia Republican, who proposed the reading. “This Congress has been very aggressive in expanding the power of the federal government, and there’s been a big backlash to that.”

The biggest changes would make it easier to cut spending and harder to create entitlement programs, while imposing restrictions that could keep leaders from jamming massive bills onto the House floor before lawmakers have had a chance to digest them.

“To begin to restore trust with the American people, Republicans have pledged to operate Congress differently: with real transparency, greater accountability and a renewed focus on the Constitution,” said Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon, who led the GOP’s transition team. “The sweeping reforms offered in this package make clear we intend to keep that promise.”

The Democrats, of course, are putting up a resistance. They’re not happy with House Republicans’ new rule requiring new spending to be offset by corresponding budget cuts.

In the Senate, where Demonrats will retain a majority by a much smaller margin, all returning Demonrats have signed a letter asking their Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) to change the chamber’s operating rules in order to rein in repeated Republican filibusters.

Liberal legal scholars praised the movement to curtail filibusters. Happily, it’s unclear how much room there is for major changes, since Republicans are likely to be united against anything that would constrain their rights as the minority party.

We the People must stay informed and engaged, and continue to watch Congress with an eagle eye! Remember these words of warning by Thomas Jefferson

“If once they [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves.” Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Carrington, 1787.


Fangs Exposed, the Left Turn on Obama

For months now, the most read post of Fellowship of the Minds is “Carrot, Egg, or Coffee.” It’s a parable about how we manage the inevitable slings and arrows, the hills and valleys of life.

Adversity tests our character. Our real selves are exposed in how we comport ourselves when things get difficult. 

This is how the Left react when they don’t get their way.

Democrats are apoplectic (furious, enraged, or upset to the point of being unable to deal with a situation rationally or diplomatically) over their former Messiah’s compromise with the GOP on keeping the tax STATUS QUO (it’s not a tax CUT!!!!). One Demonrat even used the F-word.

As reported by Anna Palmer of Roll Call, Dec. 9, 2010:

The frustration with President Barack Obama over his tax cut compromise was palpable and even profane at Thursday’s House Democratic Caucus meeting.

One unidentified lawmaker went so far as to mutter “f— the president” while Rep. Shelley Berkley [D-Nevada] was defending the package the president negotiated with Republicans. Berkley confirmed the incident, although she declined to name the specific lawmaker….

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.) was also overheard saying that “we can’t trust him” not to cave to Republicans and extend the tax cuts again in two years, according to a Democratic source.

The anger aimed at the bill was widespread. As Democrats moved to block the bill from coming up on the floor, chants of “Just say no!” could be heard by reporters outside the room.

 Then there is Keith Olbermann, MSNBC’s evil clown. Yesterday, he was foaming-at-the-mouth enraged at Obama, urging the Congressional Demonrats and “every American” to fillibuster Obama and for the Left to “rally in the streets.” Then Olbermann used the G-word:

“It is not disloyalty to the Democratic Party to tell a Democratic President he’s wrong. It is not disloyalty to tell him he’s God damned wrong.”

Click HERE to see Olbermann go apoplectic.

This is not the first time Olbermann had used God’s name in vain, as you can see in this video at around the 0:55 mark:

So if the Left are vicious to one of their own, can you imagine how they really feel about us Conservatives and any dissenter?

Actually we do know.

Do you remember that very revealing 10-10 video put together by the Global Warming true-believers in which skeptics are literally blown up by explosives? No? Here’s a reminder:

That’s what the Left really, secretly want to do to dissenters.

That’s the true scary face of the Left.

H/t beloved fellow Anon.

UPDATE: Newsbusters says that the F-bomb story is not being reported by the three major TV networks. Of course, when Republican Congressman Joe Wilson (SC) said “you lie” during Obama’s speech to Congress in September 2009, the networks were all over that story. No bias there, no sir!


Calls For Military Intervention, Impeachment & Revolution

On October 15, I posted Americans Are Speaking Out in Open Rebellionabout anti-Obama signs, billboards, and bumperstickers spreading like wildfire across America, such as this one:

As we get closer to the pivotal November 2 elections, it is not just nameless faceless everyday Americans who are speaking their minds. Increasingly, voices attached to names are calling on the military to step in to make matters right in America, or for impeachment, or should all efforts fail, outright revolution.

Military Coup

Writing for the Canada Free Press on October 18, 2010, Thor Asgardson concludes:

What is most remarkable at this juncture, is the fact that a military man with an impeccable service record, is putting his career on the line by facing courtmartial in a kangaroo court, for refusing to obey deployment orders from an obvious usurper.

Highly decorated Army surgeon, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin has become the sacrificial lamb for the sins of the Obama regime, insofar as he now stands alone to challenge Obama´s eligibility to serve in the capacity of president, where numerous prior lawsuits against the regime have failed, due to Obama´s total control over all facets of government checks and balances.

Obama has actually attained the status of a dictator, which former President George W. Bush would only muse over in jest of fancy.

[…] The only man who should be facing a military tribunal, is the one who now sits in the Oval Office. It is hoped that the United States military will coalesce around Lt. Col. Lakin—and the nation—to release the corporate stranglehold on our country, by deposing the usurper president from power by military coup.

The United States military must come forth as the spearhead of the Second American Revolution, to deliver the American people from bondage to usury at the hands of the Federal Reserve and to restore justice and rule of law to our republic. This great task requires a military occupation on Capitol Hill, to elicit regime change.


Tim Walberg

As early as September 1, 2010, a columnist for the Washington Times already had called for impeaching Obama. His call is now joined by a GOP candidate for the House of Representatives from Michigan’s 7th Congressional district, former Congressman and former pastor Tim Walberg.

As reported by Floyd Brown on October 19, 2010:

Walberg told a town hall audience last week the president should dispel rumors about his eligibility by unveiling his full birth certificate. He stated, “I’m going to take him at his word that he’s an American citizen.” However, the president should show his full, long-form birth certificate to a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers and journalists — including Congressional leaders of both parties, a representative of the judiciary, Alan Colmes, and Rush Limbaugh. Walberg said in that situation, “I would lay out my birth certificate on the table” and tell those who verified it, “Now go and report it.”

The trouble, he said, is that no one is holding the executive branch accountable. The powers of the presidency are such that “the Executive has an awful lot of power to keep from showing certain things unless the courts will stand up to him.”

Then Walberg laid the i-word out on the table. “Or unless Congress, in majority, will stand up,” he said, “up to and including impeachment.”


GOP congressional candidate Stephen Broden, an African American, is prepared to go even further than impeachment. Melanie Mason of the Dallas Morning News reports on October 22, 2010:

Stephen Broden

Republican congressional candidate Stephen Broden stunned his party Thursday, saying he would not rule out violent overthrow of the government if elections did not produce a change in leadership. In a rambling exchange during a TV interview, Broden, a South Dallas pastor, said a violent uprising “is not the first option,” but it is “on the table.” That drew a quick denunciation from the head of the Dallas County GOP, who called the remarks “inappropriate.”

Broden, a first-time candidate, is challenging veteran incumbent Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson in Dallas’ heavily Democratic 30th Congressional District.

…In the interview, Brad Watson, political reporter for WFAA-TV (Channel 8), asked Broden about a tea party event last year in Fort Worth in which he described the nation’s government as tyrannical. “We have a constitutional remedy,” Broden said then. “And the Framers say if that don’t work, revolution.”

Watson asked if his definition of revolution included violent overthrow of the government. In a prolonged back-and-forth, Broden at first declined to explicitly address insurrection, saying the first way to deal with a repressive government is to “alter it or abolish it.”

“If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary,” Broden said, adding the nation was founded on a violent revolt against Britain’s King George III.

Watson asked if violence would be in option in 2010, under the current government. “The option is on the table. I don’t think that we should remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms,” Broden said, without elaborating. “However, it is not the first option.”

H/t beloved fellow Tina!