Sunday, November 11, 2012

America Chose Tyranny

I have decided to finally give my opinion about the decision American voters made on November 6th. I have seen many political pundits give their opinions as to why Mitt Romney lost but I think they are looking only at surface issues. We have chosen tyranny and rejected liberty but it is much deeper than that.

I have always heard that we are a center-right country but it is quite obvious that is no longer true. This has become a leftist nation and I don't believe our best days are still ahead but instead, I see that our demise has been firmly set in stone.

Because of the re-election of Barack Obama his signature assault on our nation, ObamaCare, will be embedded and cemented in our culture. We will finally have socialized medicine after 100 years of Progressives fighting for it and we will suffer dearly once it is completely implemented. Also, Obama's "fundamental transformation" of America will be completed after eight years in office. But that is not the worst thing from this election.

The people in the states of Maine, Maryland and Washington have voted to approve same sex marriage. Every time the people have been allowed to vote about same sex marriage, instead of state legislatures forcing it down their throats, it has been rejected until this week. But that is not the worst thing from this election.

Republicans are running scared because they failed to gain votes from Hispanics, Latinos, Mexicans, etc., and have decided it is time to open our borders to one and all so they can garner more votes in future elections. Rush Limbaugh looked at the elections after Ronald Reagan approved amnesty in 1986 and found some interesting information: "Ronaldus Magnus passes amnesty, Simpson-Mazzoli in 1986. Ronald Reagan in 1984 got 37% of the Hispanic vote. So the Republican Party getting 37% of the Hispanic vote when Reagan signs amnesty. George H. W. Bush, Bush 41, runs for office in 1988, two years after Simpson-Mazzoli. Two years after the Republican Party is seen as heroically granting amnesty, what percentage of the Hispanic vote do you think that George H. W. Bush got two years after Reagan passed amnesty? Thirty percent. The Republican Party lost 7% of the Hispanic vote after passing amnesty." The Republicans are believing a lie. It turns out that "it is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic party, but the core Democratic principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation."

There was a Mexican caller on Limbaugh's program Friday that verified... "unfortunately the majority of the Mexican people that come over to the United States, they're already marginalized in their own country. They don't have very much education and they believe that the government is the only source of wealth." (emphasis mine)

The Republicans are willing to throw out their principles and move to the left in order to buy votes they will never get. We may get open borders, more lawlessness, more weakening of our culture and a more divided America because of this lie and the cowardice of Republicans but the GOP will get something else. They will never win another nationwide election because 12-20 million illegals that receive amnesty will vote for the government to support them and that means they will continue to vote Democrat. But that is not the worst thing from this election.

Have you thought about the Supreme Court? Justices Scalia and Kennedy are 76 and Justice Thomas is 64. If anything (God forbid!) happens to any or all of these men, Obama will appoint more replacements and the court will go hard left. Our Constitution will be re-written for a generation or longer without properly amending it. But that is not the worst thing from this election.

Do you remember when the Democrats dropped God and pro-Israel language from their platform during their convention, last September, and tried to have it reinstated by a floor vote? The delegates overwhelmingly voted "NO!" but the chair declared they had voted yes! From that point on, we knew the Democrats, as a party, rejected God and are anti-Semitic. Of course, we should have known since Roe v Wade that Democrats reject God.

Since becoming a Christian, I have known for many years that the United States of America is not mentioned in Bible prophecy. Interesting, isn't it? Why would the world's most prominent super power, the largest economic power, the most prosperous and wealthy nation in the history of man be ignored in end times prophecy? The three main possibilities might be: God's prophecies concern Israel so only the nations in close proximity to it are mentioned, the US has become a destitute, third world country by the time God's prophecies are fulfilled or the US has been destroyed by a nuclear attack. Of course, there could be a combination of two or more of these.

Contrary to popular belief, our nation was founded by godly and moral men who lived according to Biblical principles and I believe the Constitution of the United States was inspired by God. The founders prayed together at the Constitutional Convention asking for the Lord's guidance in their endeavors. The first textbook used in our schools (from the 1700s to the early 1900s) was the New England Primer that used scripture to teach children morals, ethics, scruples and how to live a godly life. Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary used scripture to define words of the English language. Webster once wrote:

All of the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from them despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.

And he also wrote:

The Bible must be considered as the great source of all the truth by which men are to be guided in government as well as in all social transactions.

Ours was once a Christian nation and God blessed us with liberty and prosperity for many generations. However, throughout the last generation or two we have grown cold to the Lord but I thought there was a majority of Americans that still believed in God and welcomed him in our country.

On November 6th, I was proven wrong. A majority of Americans voted to be ruled by a party that rejects God and has no desire to continue a close relationship with the State of Israel. Obama voters think his re-election means Israel will soon be gone (graphic language warning!) and even Israel expects the US to abandon them because of the election outcome.

The Democrat party's rejection of God is the worst thing that has come from the election and we will suffer from this choice. I am not saying that every Democrat is godless but I am saying a majority of the delegates at their convention loudly voted against putting God and pro-Israel language back in their platform after it had been removed. Genesis 12:2-4 speaks of God's feelings about nations that bless or curse Israel and the reaction he will have.

I grew up in Indianapolis, Indiana and I remember The Indianapolis Star's masthead had the following scripture quote: Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. I seriously doubt if that newspaper still has that scripture on the front page. We continue to remove God from the public square, to our own detriment, as we shun our Christian heritage and beliefs.

With the majority of voters choosing the Democrat party for two thirds of our national government, the approval of same sex marriage by three states, the change of our culture from work to welfare, the continuing irresponsibility of our government's immoral spending of money we do not have and never will have, as a majority, we have rejected God, his Word, his principles and his precepts. The consequences will be grave.

We can still choose to serve God as individuals and trust in him for our individual salvation even as our country is slowly destroyed around us. My advice is to repent, let Jesus change your heart and your life as you serve him. Jesus is our only hope now and forever. There is no politician, no election and no government that can help us.

I have spent three years and countless hours contributing to this blog because I was hoping in my own small way to make a difference. Instead, I have allowed my relationship with Jesus to suffer and I have been deeply entrenched in the slime of American politics on almost a daily basis. I had planned for this to be my last post but Michael, the founder of Republic Heritage, has asked me to reconsider and suggested that I change the tone of this blog from politics to Christian outreach. At this point I'm undecided.

There is a Christian song that has this chorus:

When mountains fall, I'll stand
By the Power of Your Hand
And in Your Heart of Hearts, I'll dwell
That my soul knows very well.

I believe the mountains that have held America up are about to fall. Please, let the power of God's hand keep you standing.


Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Bigger, Better America

YouTube description: The differences between Mitt Romney and President Obama are clear. He says it has to be this way. Mitt Romney says it can't stay this way. President Obama is hoping Americans settle, but Americans don't settle. We build. We aspire.

Red Rocks

YouTube description: Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan took to Colorado to spread their message of creating good jobs and getting our economy going again.

Romney Is What the Country Needs Right Now

Ann Coulter
The single most important issue in this election is ending the national nightmare of Obamacare.

If Obamacare is not stopped, it will permanently change the political culture of this country. There will be no going back. America will become a less productive, less wealthy nation. What wealth remains will have to be plowed into Obamacare -- to the delight only of the tens of thousands of government bureaucrats administering it.

There won't be one moment marking the end of America. Everything will just gradually get worse, like trains and the tax code, until a bustling, prosperous nation is as distant a memory as pleasurable train travel and one-page tax returns.

The reason we have Obamacare is not because the public was clamoring for the federal government to take over health care. It's because the Democrats had 60 senators. In the frozen ideology of the left, it doesn't matter if anyone wants government health care.

Democrats had been waiting around for 50 years to win huge majorities in the House and Senate and the presidency, so they could check off this box on "FDR's Unfinished Business."

Unlike all other major legislation in the nation's history, Obamacare was passed exclusively by one party that had just won an aberrationally large majority in Congress. Not a single Republican in either the House or Senate voted for it.

Republicans have passed legislation on such partisan votes, too, but never something that would fundamentally change the lives of every living American. Nationalizing one-sixth of the economy is not the kind of thing that should be passed by one party sneering, "Ha, ha -- we have 60 votes!"

As soon as all Americans have been thrown off their employer-provided insurance plans and are forced to start depending on the government for health care, Republicans will never be able to repeal it.

The private insurance market will be gone. Most Americans won't be able to conceive of getting health care that doesn't come from the government -- just as people in the Soviet Union couldn't imagine how they'd get bread if the government didn't provide it.

(Also similar to Communist systems, you'll have to know someone in power to get decent medical care.)

A powerful health care Leviathan will arise, composed of self-paced, well-pensioned, unionized government workers who will manage our health care from 10 a.m.-3 p.m., except federal holidays, sick days, mental health days and in bad weather. (The day after Hurricane Sandy, everything was open on the mostly unaffected Upper East Side of New York -- but not the post office.)

Read the rest of the column

One Last Chance to Kill Obamacare

The only remaining hope of finally killing this monster lies in a Romney victory.

Barack Obama's promise to cure the ills of our health care system was obviously an important factor in his 2008 victory over John McCain as well as that year's Democrat gains in the House and Senate. Most of the electorate favored some legislation that would slow rising medical costs and increase access to care. However, when Obamacare finally slogged out of the congressional slough, it was greeted with consternation and outrage. Instead of the reform they were promised, the voters got a grotesque government behemoth reeking of corruption. They were not amused. They appeared en masse at town hall meetings to harangue their representatives, organized a series of public protests and finally marched on Washington.

All for naught, of course. The President and his congressional accomplices ignored the voters, patronizing them with the assurance that they would learn to love "reform" once they understood it. But the electorate still regards the thing with fear and loathing. A recent Rasmussen survey showed that 54% of likely voters favor repeal, the precise percentage who opposed the law when it passed. Nonetheless, if the President is re-elected, ObamaCare will become a permanent feature of the entitlement landscape. The Supreme Court has demonstrated that it won't protect us from the beast's depredations, and a high priority of a second Obama term will be full implementation of his most important domestic "achievement."

The only way to kill this monster is full repeal. And, for all intents and purposes, tomorrow offers the last chance to set that process in motion. The need to take advantage of this opportunity is made manifest by a review of what the President and the Democrat Congress wrought in the name of "reform." It isn't possible to cover all of Obamacare's flaws in one column, but the point can be made by a brief summary of its worst provisions. Among these are mandates that restrict individual liberty and freedom of conscience, tax increases totaling more than $800 billion, the creation of perverse economic incentives that will kill millions of jobs, and the creation of a rationing board whose power will be virtually unchecked.

Obamacare contains a variety of arbitrary and harmful mandates, including one that requires insurance companies to provide health policies that meet federally defined "minimum standards." This is a very bad idea with a long track record of driving insurance premiums up. But the law's most egregious mandates are the "minimum coverage provision" that requires you to buy health coverage regardless of your desire or need to do so, and the HHS contraception mandate that requires all employers -- including Catholic hospitals and universities -- to provide employees coverage for abortion pills, contraceptives, and sterilization procedures. Combined, these mandates constitute a brazen assault on our most basic liberties.

The "minimum coverage provision," more commonly known as the individual mandate, forces you to buy a service from a private company approved by the government. This is the first time in the history of the republic that such a law has been passed by Congress. And, contrary to the claims of its supporters, it isn't comparable to state laws requiring drivers to buy auto insurance. Such requirements are imposed as a condition of owning and operating a large and dangerous machine. You can avoid those mandates by utilizing public transportation. The individual insurance mandate, on the other hand, is imposed on you merely because you exist. Thus, you can only avoid it by dying or paying a fine to the government.

Read the full article

And there is this...

Politico: Post-election flood of ‘Obamacare’ rules expected

The Washington Times: Medicare rationing under Obamacare has started already

Falling on Principle

And there is this...

The Washington Times: Libertarian Johnson expects to make impact in Ohio, Colorado

What President Obama really said in that '60 Minutes' interview about Benghazi

Bret Baier
ANALYSIS: Two days before the election, CBS posted additional portions of a Sept. 12 "60 Minutes" interview where President Obama seems to contradict himself on the Benghazi attack. As the Benghazi investigation gets more attention and focus, CBS is once again adding to the Benghazi timeline.

In the interview, according to the latest portions, Obama would not say whether he thought the attack was terrorism. Yet he would later emphasize at a presidential debate that in the Rose Garden the same day, he had declared the attack an act of terror.

That moment was one of the most intense exchanges in the second presidential debate. Romney was on the offensive on what conservatives believed was a serious vulnerability of Obama -- the handling of the Benghazi attack and what he called it from the beginning.

The town hall questioner asked, "Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?"

Obama did not provide a direct answer, but said: "When I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable, and I am ultimately responsible for what's taking place there, because these are my folks, and I'm the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home, you know that I mean what I say."

Romney pounced, saying, "There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration or actually whether it was a terrorist attack. And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack, and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people."

On rebuttal, Obama seemed rehearsed, but indignant. "The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror... And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as president. That's not what I do as commander in chief."

Governor Romney walked forward and started questioning ...

Read the full article

Monday, November 5, 2012

'Our Country’s Future is in our Hands'

This is the entire Facebook post from Sarah Palin yesterday. I will let her have the last word on Republic Heritage before election day. - Reggie

Sarah Palin looking at our Constitution
This Tuesday our country’s future is in our hands.

What’s past is prologue. We know what we will get from a second Obama term because we’ve all endured his first term. We know how well he kept his 2008 campaign promises. Do we really believe he’ll keep his 2012 promises?

Do we believe the word of a man who promised he wouldn’t raise taxes on the middle class, but then slammed the middle class with a massive tax hike in the form of Obamacare (and don’t forget that his own lawyers argued before the Supreme Court that the individual mandate is a tax)?

Do we really believe he won’t raise taxes even more on every American in order to pay for his wasteful spending and his crony capitalism?

Do we believe that the same president who increased the debt in his first term by more than all the first 41 presidents combined will suddenly decide to cut the deficit in his second term?

Do we believe that the president whose reckless spending led us to the first credit rating downgrade in our nation’s history will suddenly become a responsible fiscal manager if we reelect him?

Do we really believe that a president who promised us that job creation was his number one priority despite month after month of dismal job numbers now has a credible “plan” for the job growth that eluded him for the past four years?

Do we believe that the same president who shut down the Keystone Pipeline and blocks domestic oil and natural gas development at every turn is somehow going to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and lead us to energy independence?

Do we really believe that our country’s national security is safe in the hands of a president whose administration denied security and assistance to our consulate under attack on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on America, and then blamed that consulate attack and the death of our ambassador on a “spontaneous” protest over an obscure YouTube video despite all the real time evidence to the contrary?

Do we believe that a president who was caught on a hot mic telling the Russian president that he would have “more flexibility” after his reelection is being honest about his plans for a second term?

We know what we will get from a second Obama term. We will get the same failed policies. We will get Obamacare locked into law without any chance of undoing this dangerous legislation and any chance to seek real patient-centered health care reform. We will get a debt crisis. We will get more inflation and higher gas prices. We will get tax increases. We will get fewer jobs. We will get more small businesses collapsing under the weight of higher taxes and unfair regulation. We will get more corruption and crony capitalism favoring the Obama administration’s friends. We will get less domestic energy development and increased dependence on terrorist sponsoring foreign regimes for our energy needs. We will get a “blame America first” foreign policy that bows to our enemies and snubs our friends like Israel and leaves America and the world less safe. We will get less opportunity and security for ourselves and for our children.

In 2008, Barack Obama promised to fundamentally transform America. And for all his failures and broken promises, that’s the one thing he has delivered on. He’s transformed us from a nation of hope to one of anxiety. It doesn’t have to be this way.

Tuesday is our chance to turn things around.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have offered a credible alternative to Barack Obama’s failed policies. Governor Romney understands how the free market works. His pro-growth economic policies will benefit all Americans. He has promised to move us toward energy independence, deficit reduction, and responsible entitlement reform that honors our commitment to our seniors and keeps faith with future generations. Governor Romney deserves a chance to lead. President Obama had his chance. He’s failed, and we can’t afford to go backwards.

We must also remember the many good Republican candidates who are running for the House and Senate this year. They deserve our support as well. If you are like me, you have watched these campaigns, learned about the candidates, and know where they stand despite the skewed lens of a partisan media bent on keeping liberal leadership in power. We saw the destruction a Democrat controlled White House, House, and Senate brought us after the 2008 election. Our country can’t afford that again. Your vote is the only safeguard against that happening.

On Tuesday, please vote for Governor Mitt Romney and the commonsense conservatives running for office in your states.

Voting is our duty and our right. We must never forget the immense sacrifices generations of Americans, including our brave men and women in uniform today, have made to give us this right. And we must never forget the duty we owe to generations of Americans yet to be born to exercise our right to vote prudently. The White House and control of the Senate is in the balance in this election, and every vote will count.

I firmly believe it is our responsibility to restore this country and secure the blessings of liberty and prosperity for our children, just as it was secured for us. This is our sacred duty to the past and to the future. We will succeed in this so help us God.

God bless you and God bless America.

With an Alaskan heart,

Sarah Palin

True the Vote: Keeping Our Elections Free and Clean

HOUSTON, TX - The 2012 election will be the first in 30 years where the country will see a large organized presence dedicated to the integrity of votes cast, all thanks to voter integrity group True the Vote.

During the 2008 election cycle, Catherine Engelbrecht volunteered at the polls in Harris County, the second largest voting block in Texas. She noticed that although she was there with a small group of people to observe, Harris County had a poll watcher shortage of at least 50 percent. There weren’t enough people observing the election process to prevent fraud. Shortly after her experiences at the polls, Harris County authorities found 23,000 invalid voter registration forms that had been submitted by an ACORN operative. It was then that Engelbrecht founded True the Vote, where she now serves as president. The mission of True the Vote is simple: prevent voter fraud and uphold the law.

“We recognized there was a problem,” Engelbrecht tells Townhall. “There are raging debates about Cap and Trade and healthcare and you name it, but if the election process isn’t trustworthy, if it’s not reliable, then you know what does any of it really matter? It’s a scary thought to think about how tenuous, how fragile the process really is but it was so clear that something was not right and the quickest fix was to remind citizens that voting was not enough.”

Engelbrecht and True the Vote volunteers quickly started to identify how citizens could get further involved with the election process by looking at the process as a whole. Poll watching was an easy way to get a large amount of people involved in the election process.

“What got my attention is the simple fact that this where it all starts. If we cannot freely and fairly elect our representatives, nothing from there goes the way the citizens of the country want it to go, that’s the beginning,” True the Vote volunteer Joni Carlisle, who uses vacation time to help the organization 14 hours a day, tells Townhall. “We’re making a huge difference.”

By Election Day 2010, True the Vote had trained 1,000 poll watchers who could be used by election officials to observe polling stations in Harris County. Training of everyday citizens was then expanded across the country to further prevent voter fraud.

“We didn’t look for it to be a national thing, we just thought, ‘We see a problem and we need to fix it,’” Engelbrecht says. “We really decided we would become the boutique provider of in depth, real life training opportunities and it seemed to resonate across the country in ways that we could have never imagined.”

Read the full column

As Ohio Counts, So Waits the Nation

John Fund
A bloody recount battle may be in store this election.

Cincinnati, Ohio — If the presidential election goes into “overtime” — if no winner is known on Wednesday morning after the election — the culprits may be procrastinating absentee voters in Ohio. If it goes on beyond that with no decision, it may be due to lawyers from both parties’ fighting trench warfare over individual ballots in a bloody recount. It could easily happen in other states, but the danger of an “overtime” election is perhaps greatest in Ohio.

This year for the first time, Ohio officials mailed every registered voter in the state an application for an absentee ballot. A total of 1.3 million applications flooded in, and to date some 1.1 million, or 85 percent, have been returned. But many of the rest won’t be mailed before the election. So what if the voters who failed to send in their absentee ballots show up at their polling places on Tuesday asking to vote?

They will be allowed to, but only by provisional ballot in order to make sure they don’t vote twice.

Other people will have to cast provisional ballots — those who have changed their names or moved but not sent in a change of address, or those who have registered just prior to the deadline this year but whose names don’t show up on local precinct lists. There will also be people trying to vote who aren’t eligible — because they didn’t register in time or don’t have even a non-photo form of ID. By law, none of those provisional ballots can be opened and counted for ten days — until November 17. Voters have those ten days to contact their local election board to provide additional information to get their vote counted. In addition to provisional ballots, some 20,000 or more absentee votes that arrive after Election Day will remain uncounted for ten days.

“Ohio could be close enough that those provisional and other ballots will matter,” says Tom Burke, the chairman of the Board of Elections in Hamilton County, which contain’s Cincinnati. In 2008, over 207,000 such ballots were cast. Ohio has often been close in presidential contests. Jimmy Carter won the state by only 11,000 votes out of 4.1 million cast in 1976, and in 2004 George W. Bush’s margin of victory was only 119,000. Lawyers for John Kerry, Bush’s opponent, have told me they planned to go to court in Ohio if the margin had been less than 50,000 votes. Kerry did not concede the state — and the presidency — until 11 a.m. on the Wednesday after the election.

A fight over ballots is guaranteed to ensue this year in Ohio if the margin of victory is within one-half of one percentage point of votes cast — or about 25,000 votes. An automatic recount kicks in at that point. Legal challenges could prevent it from beginning until early December. That’s a problem given that December 11 is the deadline by which Congress is required to honor a state’s results. If Ohio misses that deadline, it will have to find some way to deliver its results by December 17, when the Electoral College is scheduled to meet.

People on both sides of the political divide — from Ohio’s former Republican secretary of state Ken Blackwell to Lawrence Norden of the liberal Brennan Center for Justice — use the same word to describe either a recount or a fight over provisional ballots in Ohio: “nightmare.” Election officials and lawyers from both parties will scrutinize all the provisional ballots and argue over whether they should be counted. In 2008, one in five were ruled ineligible. “Ohio has a history of litigating over the rules for counting provisional ballots,” Ned Foley of the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State told National Journal.

Washington State’s 2004 photo-finish race for governor demonstrated the kind of chaos that can result from this scenario. On the night of the election, Republican Dino Rossi appeared to be the winner over Democrat Christine Gregoire by about 3,000 votes. But there were enough provisional ballots and absentee ballots that had been mailed but had not yet arrived to swing the election.

Democrats in Seattle’s liberal King County demanded the names and addresses of voters so they could contact them and correct any errors in their provisional ballots. County officials responded that the information was private, and Republicans argued that having partisans scavenge for votes would increase the potential for fraud.

But Superior Court Judge Dean Lum ordered officials to give the names and addresses of provisional voters to the Democratic party. Democrats spent the next three days knocking on doors and calling voters. Ryan Bianchi, communications director for Christine Gregoire, made it clear how partisan their approach was. Democratic volunteers asked if voters had cast ballots for Gregoire. “If they say no, we just tell them to have a nice day,” he told the Seattle Times. Only if they said yes did the Democrats ask if they wanted to make their ballots valid. Republicans tried to play catch-up but were woefully outmanned.

In the end, Democrats turned in some 600 written oaths from provisional voters and Republicans about 200. King County suddenly announced that it had 10,000 more absentee ballots than it had previously estimated. When the official vote count was certified on November 17, Rossi’s lead fell to 261 votes.

At that point, an official recount was held by running all the ballots back through machines. But in King County, officials “enhanced” 710 votes that had been rejected by the machines, in some cases altering them with correction fluid or filling in the ovals on the optical-scan ballots. In the county, which has 30 percent of the state’s voters, Gregoire harvested a net gain of 219 votes — more than the changes in the rest of the state for both candidates combined. Rossi’s lead was down to 42 votes when the machine recount ended on November 24.

Democrats put up the $750,000 required to pay for a third count of the ballots — this time by hand. But a hand count is less precise than a machine count, as the spectacle of Florida’s hanging chads proved during the 2000 recount. “When you’re talking about close to 900,000 pieces of paper, I think the machine count is going to be more accurate than a manual count,” admitted Democrat Dean Logan, the then-director of elections for King County.

Read the rest of the column

And there is this...

Human Events: GOP worries about Ohio voting mischief among students

What's at Stake Tomorrow

Just imagine where's we'll be in 2017 after a second Obama term.

Tomorrow we go to the polls in the most important election of our lifetimes. If that seems an overstatement, the following should erase any doubt.

RealClearPolitics has the race essentially tied, with Obama leading by a hair. My favorite political guru -- Michael Barone -- has predicted a mini-landslide for Romney.

Whatever the result may be, the stakes could not be higher. Barack Obama's presidency has been totally partisan and intensely ideological. He has pushed everything he could touch radically leftward, changing America's course and the world's. If he is re-elected, that push will continue so effectively that whoever succeeds him in 2017 will discover that most of the damage done is irreparable. Consider just a few of the most important issues that the president -- be it Obama or Romney -- will decide.

Last week, Mad Dog Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Senate Majority Leader, said that it was "laughable" to think that liberal Senate Dems would work with a president Romney. Unless the Republicans take the Senate, nothing a President Romney offers will even come to a vote unless Romney can find a way around Reid. "Bipartisanship" is as easily corralled as a unicorn.

Our economy has to regain economic security, which means stability in the conditions that promote growth. We have not had that stability since at least 2006. In the six years since then, we've lost the historic rate of American economic growth, amounting to at least 15% of our GDP.

Economic security is impossible to achieve with a devout Keynesian in the White House. Obama believes that government is the most beneficial influence on our economy, and has proved that time and again with the "stimulus" that didn't create jobs and with Obamacare, which takes over 16% of our economy and does nothing to reduce the costs of health care. Obama has been obstinate in his refusal to even consider reforming some of the government programs that will bankrupt the nation, from Social Security and Medicare to his policies that thwart energy development. Obama's solution to our energy crisis is more global warming nonsense, from wind farms to electric cars.

In January, if Obama is re-elected, we will go over the economic cliff the Keynesians have built. Taxes will rise dramatically, causing -- as the Congressional Budget Office foretold last August -- a deep recession that will last for years. CBO's projections are really a best-case scenario because they include huge increases in government revenue despite the recession they predict. But tax revenues can't rise in a recession: the economy has to grow to produce the incomes that can be taxed and it won't if Obama is re-elected.

Obama's plans are to stand by and be sure that tax increases coming next year happen, and then seek more. In the third debate, he said that sequestration -- which will take an additional $600 billion out of the Pentagon's budget over ten years, totaling $1 trillion over that period when combined with the nearly $500 billion Obama has already cut -- won't happen. Which is nonsense. Obama has repeatedly threatened to veto any bill that stops sequestration to prevent defense cuts. The "grand bargain" he's talking about to avoid sequestration is something he won't agree to without massive tax hikes.

In short, the biggest thing at stake tomorrow is our economic future. With Obama, it will be dismal.

If Obama is re-elected, he will continue his brinksmanship on every bill to raise the federal debt limit, now over $16 trillion. House Republicans -- still lacking the courage to win a showdown by risking a government shutdown -- will quiver and quail and make more "if-then" budget deals. Those deals -- like last summer's "supercommittee" debacle -- always have the Republicans give in on something with an immediate effect, like the debt ceiling, in return for Democrats' promises to do something in the future which they have no intention of doing. The House may be able to stop some of Obama's proposals, but on the economy they will cave in unless the 2010 freshmen and other conservatives rebel. They haven't yet.

Our lack of economic security -- which is the predicate to national security -- means that rebuilding our national security is proportionally less possible as our economy declines. Obama's agenda forces both our economic security and our military security to diminish.

Our allies know this, as Israel has learned to its pain since Obama declared that he wanted more distance between us and our only ally in the Middle East. Our enemies know this, as Iran has in Obama's utter failure to stop or even slow its march toward obtaining nuclear weapons. Obama is in the process of abdicating America's superpower role in the world.

Few Americans cast their votes on the issues of national security and foreign policy. But consider this: what Obama has done so far can be repaired in the next four years. But if Obama is allowed to continue on his path of abdication and withdrawal, after another four years the world will have changed in ways his successor will find beyond his power to correct.

Iran will have nuclear weapons unless Israel undertakes a war which may cost the Jewish state its very life. Iran, and the other state sponsors of terrorism, will have gained advantages that will allow them to control the Middle East's oil. China will have built its power over the Pacific region to the degree that Japan and Taiwan will come under its thumb. India will be more isolated and Pakistan -- a nuclear-armed state sponsor of terrorism -- will grow in power.

America's military will shrink in size and -- more importantly -- in capability. We won't build the future weapons that will be necessary to deter or defeat our enemies abroad or craft the strategies to deter or defeat the threats we face. If Obama is re-elected, America's enemies will grow stronger as we grow weaker. At the end of Obama's second term, if there is one, the world will have changed to a degree that his successor won't be able to restore America's security for that reason and one more: without a strong and stable economy, American national security will become something we can't afford.

Read the rest of the column

Leadership Failure

Mike, Andy & Chris

What’s the difference between superstorm Sandy and the horrible events that preceded it — from Hurricane Andrew in 1992 to Hurricane Hugo in 1989 to Hurricane Irene in 2011?

Answer: They happened in summer. This is November.

It’s cold. And getting colder.

All those storms did much greater damage overall and caused far greater loss of life. But for the 4 million without power in the greater New York City area in the fifth day of the aftermath, the casual, minute-by-minute suffering is fast becoming comparable.

Shortages of potable water, food running low and hundreds and hundreds of square miles from Lower Manhattan to Suffolk County to the Jersey Shore to the Connecticut shore plunging into darkness as the clock strikes 6 — this is what modern civilization is designed to defend against.

The powerlessness is not only electrical, though that is the most obvious aspect of it; it is actual.

There is nothing to be done against 13 feet of water except escape it or suffer it and its aftermath. We were powerless against this force of nature, and we are right to be humbled in the wake of it.

But we are not, as a polity, powerless to mitigate the effects of the aftermath.

Indeed, maintaining civilization at times of extreme risk to civilized conduct is the reason government exists in the first place — because we come together in societies in the first place in a mutual-defense pact against foes and forces that seek to do us ill.

And it is this primary role in which it appears our governments, local and state and federal, are failing us.

We are choosing a president and thousands of other elected officials in a few days’ time. These people have two responsibilities. The first is explicit: They are supposed to act as representatives on our behalf in the management of our government. The second is implicit: They are supposed to be our leaders in times of trouble and crisis.

Are they being leaders?

What we are getting from them is a variety of emotional and tactical responses, none of them reassuring or comforting or confidence-inspiring.

Read the full column

Obama, the Virtual Challenger

Victor Davis Hanson
Making no attempt to defend his record, he talks of what he “would” do in a second term.

In these last days of the race, Obama counts on the news of Sandy turning attention away from Romney’s October momentum, to photo-ops of himself in a monogrammed bomber jacket trying to look presidential. The more Benghazi creeps into the news, the stranger the silence from the Obama administration. But the real story is that almost all of the hope of 2008 has ended in the fear and loathing of 2012.

Obama has made no real attempt to defend much of what he has done in the last four years. It is as if his first term never existed — no 70 percent approval rating, no Democratic House, no Democratic Senate. Instead we are back to the future as a young Lincolnesque senator, with a clean slate, has come to save us from George W. Bush’s recession, which, we now learn, was caused by plutocrat Mitt Romney all along. Obama is the perpetual challenger, once more running against Bobby Rush, Alan Keyes, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain on all the wonderful things he would do if only he were elected.

On energy, suddenly the president has dropped all mention of “wind, solar, and 5 million new green jobs.” Under the radar, he may be pursuing cap-and-trade and shutting down coal plants by executive orders, but officially Obama is bragging that the oil and gas industry ignored him, drilled like crazy on private lands, and — in spite of him, not because of him — have vastly upped U.S. fossil-fuel production. And suddenly that is a good thing. His new energy message seems to have been reduced to something like, “Vote for me, because I failed to stop private energy companies, and so we are much better off.” It is as if cap-and-trade, the Chevy Volt, and Solyndra never existed.

There is the same disconnect on the economy. The recent dismal jobs report fell on deaf ears. The media do not care that the unemployment rate is worse now — after over $5 trillion borrowed and wasted — than when Obama took office four years ago. Old Democratic slogans like “It’s the economy, stupid,” and “jobless recovery” apply only when the GDP growth rate is over 3 percent, not hovering closer to 1 percent, and when unemployment is well below 6 percent, not nearly 8 percent. There is not much defense of Obamacare, or the stimulus — whose expenditures to this day cannot be defined, much less defended. Van Jones and “green jobs” are ancient history. Food-stamp statistics, new disability filings, and plunging per capita income are irrelevant and supposedly just right-wing talking points.

Instead, Obama is running as the challenger, using the hypothetical “I would” or the future-tense “I will” — as if it is Romney who has a record of failed presidential leadership. In short, Obama’s economic message is that we can reduce our defense budget — given sudden world tranquillity — and, at last, nation-build in America through radically new ideas of spending trillions of dollars in borrowed money.

The Obama notion on race, promulgated always by surrogates, is that a pro-Obama good 2008 vote proved that America in theory might not be racist, but a bad 2012 vote would confirm that it still is. No mention was ever made that Obama received more white votes than had any Democratic presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter. So the Reverend Joseph Lowery — who, with the exit of the president’s old pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, gave the benediction at Barack Obama’s inauguration in 2009 with soaring platitudes of racial healing and in turn received the Medal of Freedom from him — just announced, “I don’t know what kind of a n—– wouldn’t vote with a black man running.” He then went on to declare that he once again believed, as he had insisted as a youth, that white people were “going to Hell.” When criticized, the Medal of Freedom winner said this was meant as a joke, but one may question how appropriate such a joke is in this new age of racial healing.

Read the full column

Sunday, November 4, 2012

Mitt Romney in Pennsylvania!

Romney held a rally in Pennsylvania earlier this evening. The crowd was huge. Mittmentum? - Reggie

And there is this...

Breitbart: 30,000+ Rally for Romney in Pennsylvania

The Real Choice

This Tuesday we will choose between Liberty and Tyranny. I choose liberty. - Reggie

Let’s face it: We’re hanging by a thread on the very edge of a cliff.

WE'RE COMING DOWN to the wire now for the 2012 elections, but if you think that this choice is between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, you haven’t been paying attention. Though this presidential campaign has been broadcast, written, Tweeted, and Facebooked about more than any other in history, it’s not about the personalities involved. Forget about whether you’d want to have beer and cigarettes with Barack or spend time with Mitt doing…whatever he does for fun.

The choice is between restoring America or watching our nation become, in perpetuity, a larger version of the beleaguered European Union. Let’s face it: We’re hanging by a thread on the very edge of a cliff. Below us are all the nations we, for so long, had risen above in terms of productivity, quality of life, personal liberty, and economic freedom.

Today we live in a country where outlays by the federal government double every 18 years despite the so-called conservative movement’s efforts; where thousands of local and municipal governments can’t pay their bills and teeter on the brink of bankruptcy; where the government colludes with business, labor, and small interest groups to pick winners and losers while forcing the many to pay for the few.

It’s a ticking time bomb, and our time is almost up. From the progressives who imported from Europe ideas that favored the common good over the rights of the individual, to the New Deal, Fair Deal, and Great Society, America has become dangerously collectivist. President after president—from both parties—has built walls around failing ideas, because they’ve been reduced to mere used car salesmen trying to make a deal. They’ve altogether lacked the stomach to simply tell people “no.” And Obama has taken it to new lows.

The social compact has changed: from a time when hardscrabble people worked to better themselves and expected little help from a government whose principal function was to protect them; to a time when people’s personal achievements are forcibly tempered by a government that has pledged to support huge segments of the population on the backs of everyone else.

Through pensions, public employee unions, Medicare, and the Social Security Ponzi scheme, too many have gamed the system for too long for it to survive. We’ve gone from limited government to an attitude of “never enough.”

This whole idea of something for nothing has brought America to its weakest point since the Civil War. Instead of expecting to work hard and keep their earnings as a reward for a job well done, many Americans expect the government to provide for virtually their every need, while others are unmotivated to do more because they know they are ultimately working for the benefit of someone else.

Read the full article

Romney's Secret Voting Bloc

Daniel Henninger
Mitt Romney's margin of victory in Ohio could be evangelical Christians.

You've heard about Mitt Romney's problems with the women's vote, the black vote, the Hispanic vote, the union vote and the young Democrats vote. But there's one major voting group that's fallen off the map since the primaries.

The evangelical vote.

When Mitt Romney's 2012 candidacy was gaining traction in the primaries, the conventional wisdom instantly conveyed that the evangelical vote, skeptical of Mormonism, would sink him.

What if in Ohio next week the opposite is true? There and in other swing states—Wisconsin, Iowa, North Carolina, Florida—the evangelical vote is flying beneath the media's radar. It's a lot of voters not to notice. In the 2008 presidential vote, they were 30% of the vote in Ohio, 31% in Iowa and 26% in Wisconsin.

Back in April, the policy director of the Southern Baptist Convention, Richard Land, predicted that evangelicals in time would coalesce behind Mitt Romney. Yesterday he endorsed Mr. Romney, the first time he has done so for any presidential candidate.

Ralph Reed, the president of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, has been spending a lot of time in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the belief that evangelical support for Mr. Romney could be decisive. He notes that when George W. Bush won Ohio in 2004, the Kerry camp thought their dominance of Democratic Cuyahoga County around Cleveland had the state locked up. But Mr. Bush's solid support in evangelical-dominated counties from Cincinnati to the West Virginia border carried Ohio by two percentage points.

Before the first presidential debate on Oct. 3, Mr. Romney was eight points behind the president in Ohio. In the past week, the Cincinnati Enquirer/Ohio News Organization poll had Mr. Romney even with Mr. Obama, and a few days ago the Rasmussen poll put him up by two points.

Mr. Reed notes that in several opinion polls—NBC, Pew and ABC—the percentage of evangelicals claiming to support Mr. Romney has been in the mid-70s. "We estimate that in 2008 there were 350,000 evangelicals who didn't vote in Ohio," Mr. Reed says. "Obama carried the state by 260,000." If that support of 70% or more holds for Mr. Romney in Ohio, and if the share of the evangelical vote increases by a point or two, then the challenger could carry the Buckeye State.

Read the full column

'Troubling' Surveillance Before Benghazi Attack

Sensitive documents found amid the wreckage of the U.S. consulate shine new light on the Sept. 11 assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans

BENGHAZI, Libya — More than six weeks after the shocking assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi -- and nearly a month after an FBI team arrived to collect evidence about the attack - the battle-scarred, fire-damaged compound where Ambassador Chris Stevens and another Foreign Service officer lost their lives on Sept. 11 still holds sensitive documents and other relics of that traumatic final day, including drafts of two letters worrying that the compound was under "troubling" surveillance and complaining that the Libyan government failed to fulfill requests for additional security.

When we visited on Oct. 26 to preparea story for Dubai based Al Aan TV, we found not only Stevens's personal copy of the Aug. 6 New Yorker, lying on remnants of the bed in the safe room where Stevens spent his final hours, but several ash-strewn documents beneath rubble in the looted Tactical Operations Center, one of the four main buildings of the partially destroyed compound. Some of the documents -- such as an email from Stevens to his political officer in Benghazi and a flight itinerary sent to Sean Smith, a U.S. diplomat slain in the attack -- are clearly marked as State Department correspondence. Others are unsigned printouts of messages to local and national Libyan authorities. The two unsigned draft letters are both dated Sept. 11 and express strong fears about the security situation at the compound on what would turn out to be a tragic day. They also indicate that Stevens and his team had officially requested additional security at the Benghazi compound for his visit -- and that they apparently did not feel it was being provided.

One letter, written on Sept. 11 and addressed to Mohamed Obeidi, the head of the Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs' office in Benghazi, reads:

"Finally, early this morning at 0643, September 11, 2012, one of our diligent guards made a troubling report. Near our main gate, a member of the police force was seen in the upper level of a building across from our compound. It is reported that this person was photographing the inside of the U.S. special mission and furthermore that this person was part of the police unit sent to protect the mission. The police car stationed where this event occurred was number 322."

The account accords with a message written by Smith, the IT officer who was killed in the assault, on a gaming forum on Sept. 11. "Assuming we don't die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police' that guard the compound taking pictures," he wrote hours before the assault.

The State Department declined to comment directly on the documents, citing an ongoing investigation. "An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault on our post in Benghazi," deputy spokesman Mark Toner said. "Once we have the board's comprehensive account of what happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters."

Obeidi, the Libyan official named on one of the printouts, said he had not received any such letter, adding, "I did not even know that the U.S. ambassador was visiting Benghazi." However, a spokesman for the Benghazi police confirmed that the ministry had notified the police of the ambassador's visit. "We did not receive that letter from the U.S. consulate. We received a letter from Ministry of Foreign Affairs Benghazi asking for additional security measures around consulate during visit of the ambassador. And the police provided all extra security which was asked for," the spokesman said.

It is not clear whether the U.S. letters were ever sent, and if so, what action was taken before the assault on the evening of Sept. 11. But they speak to a dangerous and uncertain security environment in Benghazi that clearly had many State Department officials worried for their safety.

Since the fall of Muammar al-Qaddafi's regime, the country's powerful militias have often run roughshod over the police and national army -- and often coopted these institutions for their own purposes. U.S. officials were certainly well aware of the sway that various militias held over Benghazi, given that the consulate's external security was supposed to be provided by the Islamist-leaning February 17 brigade.

What exactly happened that night is still a mystery. Libyans have pointed fingers at Ansar al-Sharia, a hard-line Islamist group with al Qaeda sympathies, if not ties. Ansar al-Sharia has denied involvement, but some of its members were spotted at the consulate.

Read the full report

And there is this...

Las Vegas Review Journal: Benghazi blunder: Obama unworthy commander-in-chief

Senators Call for Select Committee

Three Senate Republicans are calling for the creation of a select committee to investigate the Obama White House’s failure to stop the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi that left four Americans, including the ambassador to Libya, dead.

Sens. John McCain (R., Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), and Kelly Ayotte (R., N.H.) sent a letter to Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) calling for the establishment of a temporary select committee in order to answer the questions still swirling around the assault. The trio is calling for the creation of a temporary committee due to the complexity of the issue and its relevance to a variety of congressional committees.

“This tragedy has raised many important questions that affect the national security of the United States and the safety of those Americans who serve our country abroad,” the letter states. “We believe that the complexity and gravity of this matter warrants the establishment of a temporary Select Committee that can conduct an integrated review of the many national security issues involved, which cut across multiple executive agencies and legislative committees—including Foreign Relations, Intelligence, Armed Services, and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.”

The Republican senators listed a host of issues they would like to see addressed:

Among the issues we believe a Select Committee would need to examine are the following: the intelligence and other threat reporting that preceded the attack, the security measures and manpower decisions taken to protect our people in Benghazi prior to the attack, the military force posture in the region at the time of the attack and the resulting ability of our Armed Forces to respond in the event of a crisis, the response of U.S. government officials once the attack began, the public characterization of the attack in Benghazi in the days and weeks that followed, the adequacy of intelligence and intelligence-sharing during the attack, as well as other important issues. In addition, the Select Committee should make recommendations to guide executive and legislative action, as necessary, to affect changes to policy elsewhere in the world in light of lessons learned in this tragedy.

Earlier in the week, McCain, Graham, and Ayotte coauthored an op-ed in the Washington Times along with Sen. Ron Johnson (R., Wisc.) asking five key questions about the Benghazi attack: why was security inadequate; why were armed forces not prepped to respond to a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11; why did the Obama administration initially blame the violence on a YouTube video; did the administration deny aid to the besieged consulate in real time; and whether or not the administration believes the tide of war is actually “receding” in the face of renewed violence.

Read the full article