The American Reistance
Tea Party Patriots are calling for protests at all IRS offices across the country…at 12 noon tomorrow — TUESDAY May 21st, 2013.
Will you attend one of these?
Currently, the Tea Party Patriots website appears to be down…which is either because of the large number of people trying to access the site for information on the protests…or it’s the federal government doing something suspicious to prevent people from easily getting this information. I know an article on Drudge Report today linked to a report in The Washington Examiner that then itself linked to Tea Party Patriots…so this could explain the high volume of traffic that may have crashed the site. Or, the Obama Regime could have just pulled the plug on that website. Here in 2013, after all that’s happened, I honestly can’t tell you for sure what’s up.
But the Tea Party Patriots’ Facebook page is still working…and you can find protest information there.
It’s really just a matter of figuring out where the IRS office is located near you…and then showing up there tomorrow at 12 noon. When you get there, no doubt you will quickly see other protestors.
The IRS Office in Chicago is at 230 S. Dearborn Street…downtown in the Loop. I found that information in seconds, just by typing in “IRS” and “Chicago” in Bing…and the address popped right up. To find your own local office, type in the name of your city and then “IRS” and you should be able to find it easily. The Tea Party Patriots went to the trouble of compiling this information for everyone, but with their website down (for whatever reason) you will need to look this up for yourself.
If you’ve never been to a protest before, I’d advise the following:
* Wear red, white and blue
* Try and grab some poster board and markers from the drug store and make yourself a sign with LARGE, printed lettering in a bold color like dark red or dark blue. Remember that people will need to be able to see your sign from a distance. The more clever the sign the more likely someone is to take a picture of it.
* Be clever and don’t use any profanity or anything that would make the Tea Party look bad…and remember that the Left and the Ministry of Truth that is our national media purposefully attend these events LOOKING for the one person in a crowd of 1,000 that is saying anything they can then blame on the entire group. It’s a sick game we’ve been playing for five years now that should be obvious to anyone paying the least bit of attention, but the media really has become the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party and these people truly are out to get the Tea Party or make its members look foolish.
* I think a good sign would say: SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FOR THE IRS! or INVESTIGATE THE IRS
If you have other ideas for signs, please share them in the thread below.
QUESTION FOR COMMENTS: Are you able to attend a protest tomorrow where you live? Maybe you could take your lunch break at this time if you live anywhere near an IRS office.
For some unknown reason…this morning I stumbled onto the Media Matters website. I think I was following a link that I found on the Fox site about Debbie Wasserman Schultz and before I knew it…I was there. I’ve never been on this site but…let me tell you…it’s worth visiting if you need a good chuckle. Do any of you watch “The Five” on Fox? I watched it yesterday and one of the topics was about DWS and how she is a complete disaster for the DNC but a great asset to Republicans. Four of the five (not Bob Beckel) were laughing about the fact that every time DWS opens her mouth, it turns people away from the Democrat party. It was a really funny segment. Anyway…one of the things discussed was the comment she made this week while she was speaking in New Hampshire. An audience member asked her about the lack of civility in Congress and DWS’s answer contained remarks about the Tea Party. The left is highly insulted that Fox is claiming that DWS is (once again) blaming the Tea Party for the Gabby Giffords shooting. Media Matters claims that her statement was taken out of context.
Here’s the transcript of the question….
AUDIENCE MEMBER: The American people are losing faith in Congress. [inaudible] because of the lack of civility. What do you think can be done to bring that faith back and then we can start thinking that they’re doing their job instead of just fighting with each other?
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, as someone who spent 19 years as a member of a legislative body, I really agree with you, that we need to make sure that we tone things down, particularly in light of the Tucson tragedy from a year ago where my very good friend, Gabby Giffords, who is doing really well by the way, and I know everybody is so thrilled, as I am, to hear that, making tremendous progress.
But the discourse in America, the discourse in Congress in particular, to answer your question, very specifically, has really changed.
And I’ll tell you, I hesitate to place blame, but I have noticed it take a very precipitous turn towards edginess and a lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement.
After the 2010 elections, when you had the Tea Party elect a whole lot of their supporters to the United States House of Representatives and you had town hall meetings that they tried to take over and you saw some of their conduct at those town hall meetings, you know, in the time that I’ve been in my state legislature and in Congress, I’ve never seen a time that was more divisive or where discourse was less civil.
It’s one thing — I’ve always had people come to my town hall meetings, for example, and say that they don’t agree with me on something. And that’s fine. And you know, that’s what those town hall meetings are about, they’re for civil discourse and give-and-take. And I learn something when I hear from a constituent who doesn’t share my view, and hopefully they do also because we’re listening to each other and there’s a back and forth.
What the Tea Party has done is they have taken it to a different level, and so when they come and disagree with you, you’re not just wrong, you are the enemy. I mean, that’s really a place that politics in America shouldn’t go. And you know, when they disagree with you on an issue, you’re not just wrong, you’re a liar. Rather than just have a difference of opinion, accusations like that get hurled, and it brings the entire discourse down to a level that I think none of us want to see remain there.
So, I have done my part. I’ll tell you that President Obama, you’ve seen, he’s tried so hard to get the Republicans to work with him, to bring them to the table, to try to get them to compromise and find common ground, but when you have someone like Mitch McConnell, for example, the minority leader of the United States Senate, say at the outset of this Congress that his number one goal is not turning the economy around, not creating jobs, but to defeat Pres– Barack Obama, well, then how are we going to reach compromise if that’s the goal that drives them and all their decisions? Because then — we won’t.
Because if that’s their goal, then anything that they do to compromise gives President Obama a win, a success, and makes it less likely in their minds that they would defeat him. Unfortunately, I think what has driven the Republicans in Congress is their interest in only one job, Barack Obama’s, when Democrats have been fighting for American jobs.
And that’s the difference. And that’s going to be the choice that people have to make.
So…what do you think? She doesn’t come right out and say “The Tea Party is responsible for Gabby’s shooting.” but I believe that the insinuation is there. There is one thing that is obviously missing in her statement. Not one time does she mention the Occupy Wall Street movement and their monstrous behavior. Not one time does she mention the Wisconsin teachers union thugs and their monstrous behavior. Not one time does she give an example of any case of violence or uncivil behavior from the Tea Party.
Greg Gutfeld has such a way with words so I think I’ll let him sum it all up…
GUTFELD (co-host): So, in my mind, which is made of felt and potatoes, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the best thing to happen to Republicans since Ronald Reagan. Seriously, I’ve had wedgies less irritating than her. And that can only chafe the Democrats. Case in point: Once again the DNC chair links the Tea Party to the Tucson mass murder. So, Frizzilla, I bet you think the discourse in America, the discourse in Congress in particular, has really changed. [Fox News, The Five, 1/12/12]
Todd Palin has thrown his hat in the ring…for Newt Gingrich. It may not be as explosive as an endorsement from Sarah but it’s the next best thing and some people are saying that Todd may be speaking for the entire Palin family so it could go a long way in helping Newt’s numbers…especially in South Carolina.
I am still baffled by the silence of the Tea Party. I read several articles today that said that the Tea Party wasn’t well organized on a national level and was fractured on who to throw their support behind. Most felt like Herman Cain was the man but, obviously, many were disappointed by how that turned out. There isn’t one central “leader” of the movement so different Tea Party groups are supporting different candidates. Some like Rick Santorum…some Rick Perry…some Newt Gingrich but none are publicly behind Mitt Romney. Perhaps the Tea Party, at this moment in time, will function best on a local level…helping to elect conservative candidates to the House and Senate. Who knows?
I think that having at least one Palin behind Newt will draw in some of the Tea Party crowd…hopefully.
I really like Todd Palin….a lot.
Hat tip to Indy for sharing.
This would be an excellent piece to share with your Lefty friends on Facebook.
Last week I wrote about a couple of traitorous additions to the Defense Authorization bill written in secret by John McCain (RINO-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI).
According to the ACLU and DownsizeDC.org, among other watchdog organizations, sections 1031 and 1032 of the bill give Obama—and every future president, if there are any—“the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world….The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.”
And (SURPRISE!) it turns out that Obama asked for that power himself.
How nice of our favorite backstabbing Constitution-shredding s0-called “Republican” John “Benedict Arnold” McCain to oblige him (may he rot in HELL, after losing a brutal primary fight that bankrupts him.)
But McCain wasn’t alone in his treachery.
Sen. Lindsey “Rights for Illegals, but Not American Citizens” Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”
It is a sad commentary on Mr. Graham–a co-sponsor of the bill–that one can’t predict if that was praise or criticism without looking at the replay. Turns out, Senator Graham thinks it’s awesome that one person the the U.S. government can pick up a phone, make a call, and make you disappear, without charges, without trial, forever.
More gullible and/or partisan members of the DNC-controlled media have been trying to insist for the past two weeks that the law doesn’t apply to Americans here, in America. And The White House was claiming that Obama was going to veto the bill if it applied to American citizens (now, not so much.) But…
“Another sponsor of the bill – Senator Levin – has also repeatedly said that the bill applies to American citizens on American soil, citing the Supreme Court case of Hamdi which ruled that American citizens can be treated as enemy combatants:
‘The Supreme Court has recently ruled there is no bar to the United States holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant,’ said Levin. ‘This is the Supreme Court speaking.’
Levin again stressed recently that the bill applies to American citizens, and said that it was president Obama who requested that it do so.”
I’ve tried to find out what happened to the bill in Conference Committee, but the general consensus in the Liberty blogosphere this evening seems to be that the bill is just as bad coming out of committee as it was going in.
This evening at 6:58 p.m., 90 Democrats and 193 Republicans voted AYE to give the most corrupt president in U.S. history the power to kidnap and detain Americans anywhere in the world, forever, just on the basis of his opinion that they’re terrorists.
I’m kind of at a loss for words here, which may be appropriate, since technically anything I say can now be used against me by the president of the United States.
The bill now heads back to the Senate. Now may be a good time to pick up the phone and let your Senators know what you think.
Thoughts? Comments? Last words? Condolences?
How did YOUR
Reprehensibles Representatives vote?
As a marketing copywriter, I am paid to influence my readers’ behavior (i.e., make them buy my clients’ stuff.) It’s my job to know how to do this, and I’m pretty good at it.
So when other writers are attempting to do the same thing–make their readers behave in certain ways, to further a political agenda–it’s laughably easy for me to recognize.
One of the Democrat-Controlled Media’s favorite slurs against Sarah Palin is that she’s “polarizing.” And it has been wildly successful. A Google search of the words “Sarah Palin polarizing” returns About 18,900,000 results.
When applying labels like “polarizing,” the goal of a propagandist is to subconsciously create a sense of unease or fear. Why? The emotion of fear creates a primal biochemical reaction that interrupts one’s ability to think rationally. So fearful people are much easier to manipulate.
Most propaganda campaigns also involve setting up an “other” purported to be unlike ourselves, whom we can hate and separate ourselves from. It’s a way of encouraging a “mob” mentality, as demonstrated most recently by the OccuPooper protests. (Their “other” is “Wall Street.”) Taken to extremes, this kind of propaganda reaches its “heights” when its used to literally dehumanize groups of people (such as Jews in Germany, or intellectuals in Maoist China).
The propaganda campaigns run by DNC surrogates in the media contain both of these elements–inducing fear, and splitting the bloc of voters who are likely to vote against Obama.
The DNC-controlled media did a masterful job of this with their successful attacks against Herman Cain, who was merely accused of engaging in behavior that is completely acceptable, if not encouraged, among members of the Democrat elite.
The DNC propaganda machine was also remarkably effective in labeling Sarah Palin as “polarizing.” Sarah Palin isn’t running, unfortunately, so the Democrat-Controlled Media has focused its propaganda machine on the GOP candidate most able to beat Obama in the general election, according to the latest poll: Ron Paul.
Except in Dr. Paul’s case, the DNC propaganda machine is pushing the “isolationist” meme instead of the “polarizing” meme. But the goal is the same: to cause fear, and brainwash voters into believing that they have to go with a “safe” choice like Mittens Romneycare. (Notice how often Gingrich and Romney are referred to as “safe” choices by the agenda-driven media–it really is an appeal to the unconscious biological drive to move away from fear.)
So today’s lesson in combating media bias is about the difference between “isolationism” and “non-interventionism.”
Most people reading this haven’t had any serious education in American history or philosophy, because we went to government schools staffed by members of the NEA. It’s up to us to educate ourselves so we can sift through media bias and hope to uncover what’s really happening and what the real issues are.
Most of us have never read George Washington’s Farewell Address, nor do we understand its significance.
For perhaps the first time in world history, the leader of a country voluntarily gave up power in an organized and peaceful transition. But he warned his countrymen to be wary of future attempts to seduce them into trading their liberty for the illusion of “security.”
“The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you….But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth…
In his Farewell Address, George Washington also advised the new Nation how to deal with other countries. Washington’s foreign policy view was that the United States’ prosperity and power would rise, not as the result of British-style militarism, but out of our morality and righteousness, in addition to our dedication to Liberty:
“Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct…It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.”
In other words, Washington expected the United States to be the “shining city on the hill,” a country that led by example, and a beacon to freedom-loving people around the world.
Washington pointed out that “permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others,” should be avoided, because
“The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.”
Washington pointed out that heated public opinion either in favor of, or against, another country could lead U.S. leaders to make policy decisions that would ultimately hurt their constituents: the very people whose opinions they were hoping to cater to.
It’s impossible to deny that Washington’s warnings to maintain positive but neutral international friendships have gone unheeded; and it’s equally impossible to deny that we’ve paid the consequences in blood and treasure. As Washington said,
“Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.“
Maintaining positive commercial relationships, freedom of travel, diplomatic relationships, cultural relationships and friendship with other nations–while remaining politically aloof from their internal affairs–is what George Washington advocated.
This kind of foreign policy position is called “non-interventionism.” It’s what Ron Paul advocates, and has advocated for at least 30 years.
In contrast, proponents of interventionism believe that the United States military and spy agencies, as well as economic sanctions and trade restrictions, can and should be used to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries.
In an outstanding piece called America’s Tradition of Non-interventionism, Chris Leithner notes that non-interventionism was America’s foreign policy for most of our existence. We minded our own business unless there was a national security threat so dire it could convince members of Congress to declare war and send their constituents to fight and die for their country.
And that’s why the Founders put the power to declare war into the hands of the House of Representatives–to ensure that the government wouldn’t embroil the People in unnecessary, unjustifiable wars.
“Yet presently in America, as for most of the past half-century, few things provoke more indignation, ridicule and denunciation from political, academic and journalistic élites (as opposed to consumers and taxpayers) than scepticism towards America’s interventionist foreign policy.”
In 1982, American troops invaded Lebanon. Ronald Reagan was vilified for “cutting and running” after withdrawing U.S. troops from Lebanon in 1983 after suicide terrorist attack on a Marine barracks that killed 231 Americans. And yet, in his autobiography, Reagan admitted,
“In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.”
Pat Buchanan earned the propagandist label of “isolationist” during the 2000 presidential campaign. I recall being afraid of Buchanan’s views at the time, though I confess I did zero independent research and just accepted what the TV told me about Buchanan. (I’m embarrassed to admit this now.)
It’s chilling to read Pat Buchanan’s warnings against interventionist foreign policy. Just a year before September 11th, Buchanan predicted the future with startling accuracy:
“How can all our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution … Have we not suffered enough – from PanAm 103, to the World Trade Center [bombing of 1993], to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam – not to know that interventionism is the incubator of terrorism? Or will it take some cataclysmic atrocity on U.S. soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the going price of empire? America today faces a choice of destinies. We can choose to be a peacemaker of the world, or its policeman who goes about night-sticking troublemakers until we, too, find ourselves in some bloody brawl we cannot handle.”
Now, the United States has 700 bases in 120 foreign countries and we’re at war (undeclared, but no less deadly) in four? five? conflicts. Clearly, for at least 60 years, America’s foreign policy has been one of interventionism (the last Constitutionally-waged war was World War II.) In the past 60 years, our military and intelligence agencies been involved in warfare and/or regime change in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Central America, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya…and I’ve probably left out a few.
So now we know what interventionism is, and we know what non-interventionism is.
So, what is isolationism? According to Wikipedia, isolationism is “the policy or doctrine of isolating one’s country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc.”
In most instances, isolationist regimes seem to also have an element of authoritarianism, necessary to keep its citizens from traveling to and trading with other countries. Probably the best current example of an isolationist regime is North Korea. (Isolationism also typically involves poverty, as protectionist trade policies are also often involved.)
Why is “isolationism” an excellent label for a propagandist?
First, most government-school graduates like me are ignorant of world history, American history, and philosophy. They don’t know what isolationism is, but it sounds scary. And lonely.
No one wants to be frightened and alone, and that’s the subliminal emotional baggage attached to the label of “isolationism.”
The “isolationist” label is also powerful because for a single word, it’s “loaded” and easy to use in conversation. In this way, it’s similar to the propaganda word “racist.” (That word comes with over 300 years of baggage.)
And finally, propaganda words like “racist” and “isolationist” are powerful because they cause conversation (and thought) to stop. That’s why “racist,” in particular, is such a go-to word for The Left.
Labeling Ron Paul an isolationist isn’t accurate by any stretch of the imagination. Even the most cursory examination of his foreign policy positions–easily available in his book on the subject, A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship–makes it clear that he’s in favor of free trade, cultural exchange, freedom of travel, and other forms of friendship with other nations.
But labeling Ron Paul an “isolationist” isn’t about accuracy; nor is it about having a sincere discussion of foreign policy differences among the GOP candidates. It’s propaganda: it’s about manipulating emotional reactions and shaping voting patterns. Just like labeling Sarah Palin “a polarizing figure.”
The DNC-controlled media’s #1 job in the GOP nomination process is to ensure the nomination of John McCain II–a squishy reach-across-the-aisle so-called “moderate” who has no chance of winning against Obama. Everything they do is in furtherance of this goal. These candidates get the most airtime; they get the most debate questions, and they get the most deference from the DNC operatives who read the “news.”
Any truly conservative candidate–and especially, any candidate with a real chance at winning–is the subject of relentless propagandizing (see Sarah Palin and Herman Cain.)
The DNC-controlled propaganda machine has successfully eliminated these two possibilities.
Until very recently, their “Ron Paul’ playbook consisted of pretending he didn’t exist, which has become harder and more comical as he has risen in the polls. As they’re forced to abandon this “blackout” strategy, look for the continuation of two back-up strategies to turn Ron Paul and his supporters into an “other” to alienate Ron Paul from the conservative voting bloc: endless questions about a mythical, and consistently-denied third-party run (questions that no other candidate ever gets, not even Jon Huntsman, the one candidate who has said that he WOULD run as a third-party candidate); and labeling Ron Paul as an “isolationist.”
Since Ron Paul massively outstrips all other candidates (including Obama) in donations from active-duty military, these foreign-policy attacks may be easier to fend off. That leaves only the “third-party” propaganda option open.
The polls closed almost two hours ago, and very early returns show that Ohioans are smacking down Obamacare by a 2 – 1 margin, with a YES vote on Issue 3, an amendment to Ohio’s constitution.
But there’s bad news on Issue 2, a vote to reign in the power of government employee unions. Thanks to massive spending on a disinformation campaign, it looks as though Issue 2 is going down by the same margin– 2 to 1.
However, election results are coming in extremely slowly. Nearly two hours after the polls closed, 20 of Ohio’s 88 counties have reported ZERO results. Hmmm. Here’s a map:
I’ll update this post with a final vote tally as the evening goes on.
UPDATE: 1:48 A.M.
Liberals–including our former governor, Ted Strickland–are spinning this 2 to 1 landslide against Obamacare as a “totally symbolic” and “meaningless” vote, whereas the 2 to 1 landslide in favor of government unions (Issue 2), on the same ballot, during the same election, was a profoundly significant mandate.
The big story is the grassroots effort that got Issue 3 on the ballot (a totally citizen-led initiative with ZERO paid petition circulators). This was a profound defeat of Obamacare and socialized medicine at the grassroots level.
Freedom fighter Lech Walesa co-founded the Solidarity trade-union movement that helped free Poland from communist dictatorship in the 1980s. This fight against tyranny–in an era when people were routinely shot dead while trying to escape from East Germany to freedom in the West–earned Lech Walesa the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984. (Insert your own Obama Peace Prize joke here.)
Associated Press reports that Walesa was planning lend his support to the Pee Party Pro-Tests alarmed Adam Andrzejewski (“an-drew-ski”), who is currently running for the Republican nomination for Governor in Illinois.
Andrzejewski reached out to the Lech Walesa Institute Foundation in Warsaw with details of the puppet masters behind the Pee Party: “anarchists, Code Pink, the American Communist movement, jihadists, anti-Israel, socialist, and anti- free enterprise interests,” informing the anti-communist freedom fighter that “OWS folks are politically to the left of President Barack Obama,” said Andrzejewski on BigGovernment.com.
Walesa has declined to meet with the Soros-funded #OWS Pee Party Pro-Testers after learning that the pro-tests have been bought and paid for by the same brand of Marxists, communists and socialists he risked his life to defeat.
That is a thing of beauty.
In May, when Barack Hussein Obama visited Poland, President Walesa refused to meet with him.
That kind of says it all, doesn’t it?
The GOP candidates who will be on the stage are:
- Michelle Bachmann (Theocrat, Tea Party candidate)
- Herman Cain (Tea Party candidate, CEO, Gospel Singer, Full of Awesome)
- Newt Gingrich (Establishment Cocktail Party Republican, but oh, so fun to watch when he gives the LSM the smackdowns they so richly deserve)
- John Huntsman (RINO, Obama Regime Plant, Disturbingly Life-Like Except When Speaking–See Mitt Romney)
- Gary Johnson (Libertarian, Budget-Cutter, Full of Awesome, kicked ass as governor of New Mexico)
- Ron Paul (Tea Party candidate, Full of Awesome, 10th Amendment Devotee, #1 in Active Duty Military Fundraising)
- Rick Perry (Establishment Cocktail Party Republican who occasionally goes slumming with the Tea Party)
- Mitt Romney (RINO, Annointed Media Darling, Epitome of Entitled Cocktail Party GOP, Disturbingly Life-Like–See John Huntsman)
- Rick Santorum (Big-Spending Theocrat who needs to go run an anti-abortion non-profit)
In an effort to provide the most fair and balanced debate possible, Fox News announced unique new debate rules today:
- Because “it’s his turn,” all questions will be directed to Mitt Romney. (However, half of those questions will accidentally be directed to John Huntsman, Mitt Romney’s animatronic stunt double.)
- Mitt Huntsman will have up to 30 minutes to respond to each question, with other candidates except Rick Perry allotted up to 10 seconds each for rebuttals, except for Ron Paul, who will get no time for rebuttals, and in fact, will not be allowed to speak at all, because “everybody knows he’s not ‘top tier.'”
- Rick Perry will have unlimited time for rebuttals whenever he’s fighting with Mitt Huntsman.
- All questions will be prefaced with the false choice, “Do you agree with Mitt Romney or Rick Perry about….” to subliminally emphasize their pretend “top tierness”
Las Vegas oddsmakers have laid the following odds for the debate:
- 10,000 to 1: All candidates get equal time
- 1 to 1: Viewer questions will be chosen to emphasize social issues and divide libertarians and Tea Party supporters from Establishment GOP voters
- 5,393 to 1: Michelle Bachmann will give Rick Perry a pass on Gardisil
- 1397 to 1: Herman Cain will answer a question about Islam by singing “Nearer My God To Thee”
- 1 to 1: Ron Paul will be asked NO questions about the Federal Reserve, sound money, the gold standard or the national debt, or any other economic topic about which he has written a book
- 1 to 1: Newt Gingrich will point out the obvious: the LSM is dead
- 50,000 to 1: Bret Baier will ask no “gotcha” questions about abortion
- 1 to 1: Mittens defends Romneycare; is identified as John Huntsman in the closed captioning
- 486 to 1: Gary Johnson will be asked, and given time to answer, an intelligent question about the War on Drugs or border control
- 15 to 1: A bug will develop in John Huntsman’s speech unit, requiring the White House to power him down and reboot him via remote control during a commercial break
- 3 to 1: No questions will be asked about Fast & Furious, Solyndra, or other Obama Regime scandals
I’ll be watching the debate on Fox News tonight at 9:00 p.m. Chime in with your comments.
Any of these candidates (with the exception of Mittens Romneycare and John Huntsman, who are not Republicans) would be a better president than Barack Hussein Obama, who is not a Muslim.
(Damn…and I went nearly a whole day without having to report myself to AttackWatch.)
DEBATE LIVE BLOGGING…
Shocking! Perry and Mittens get the first questions. Perry does well. Mittens deftly avoids answering the question and defining the word “rich.” God, he’s slimey.
Q: Michelle Bachmann is asked, “out of every dollar I earn, how much do I deserve to keep?” Great answer. She says everyone should be able to keep every dollar. AMEN.
Q: Santorum gets a “right to work” question. I watched it live, moments ago, and yet I still can’t remember what he said. I may have nodded off.
Q: Newt gets a question about unemployment. Newt thinks unemployment should be given in exchange for attending business-led job training. AMEN. Big applause. Newt wants all 50 states to experiment with this. People should never get money to stay at home and do nothing. Applause.
Q: The Huntsman Android gets a question about Solyndra and tax subsidies for alternative energy!!! He starts by sucking up to debate organizers. We’re 90 seconds in…still waiting for an answer… He’s advocating natural gas as a “bridge.” Time’s up. Huntsman flip-flops, says he would not subsidize alternative energy as he said back in June after all.
Herman Cain gets huge applause for his 9/9/9 plan. Q: Isn’t there a danger in having the income tax & sales tax at the same time? His answer is no–throw out entire current tax code & replace with 9/9/9 okab. Treat all businesses the same. Huge ovation for Herman! Crowd is showing the love.
Mittens Romneycare wants to help the people who have been most hurt. His plans says that middle income people get a tax break. Tepid applause. Weasel.
Video that got the most votes: How will 10th amendment be restored if you are elected President? Asked of Ron Paul. Ron Paul: I would veto every single bill that violates the 10th Amendment. Still has time left. Government has gotten totally out of control. There is no authority in Constitution to run schools, control economy, control individuals. He would restore constitutional government. HUGE OVATION.
Q for Gary Johnson: What makes Gary Johnson a better choice for libertarians than Ron Paul? Refuses to take Ron Paul-bashing bait. Talks about his history as governor of New Mexico. He vetoed more bills than all other governors combined. Advocates Fair Tax. BIG ovation for Fair Tax.
This seems to be a much bigger Tea Party crowd than was present at the Tea Party debate on CNN.
Message from Rick Scott.
Perry: Romney has been hammering you on your idea of turning Social Security over to the states. How will 50 separate systems work? Perry: people on SS and approaching SS have nothing to worry about. Not first time Mitt has been wrong. Perry–people should have option to go to state plans. In Mass. almost 90% of state employees aren’t in the SS system.
Romney: different than what Perry said in book & interviews. Seems petty. SS is responsibility of federal government. We’re gonna have 1 plan. Committed to keeping SS. RINO weasel answer. Perry sucks!
Perry responds: Mitt’s economic advisor talked about Romneycare…blah blah blah blah blah. Blah, blah, blah. Blah….blah. Romney sucks!
Complete waste of time. MOVE ON. NO ONE CARES.
Question for Romney: Is Obama a socialist? Romney: Weasel… weasel… joke… weasel… Never answers question. Obama’s a big-spending liberal. Takes inspiration from Europe. I believe in America. I believe in free enterprise and capitalism. Govt. is too big. I love this country. I spent my life in the private sector. Except when I was Governor Romneycare.
Question for Mittens. No, wait…that’s Huntsman. Crowd is silent. We need to create jobs…we need to fix economy…talking points…talking points…talking points. Golf applause.
One of top 10 questions: Q: If you were forced to eliminate one department from Fed government, which one and why.
Herman Cain: Will start with EPA and start all over. That makes some nervous. EPA has gone wild. Regulation goes into effect Jan. 1 to regulate DUST. Offers solution for Social Security. Chilean model. Been around 30 years and it works. 30 other countries have privatized. Don’t banter about what you call it. FIX IT. Crowd cheers.
Q: Every day Federal government brings in 6 billion dollars but spends 10. How can we slash spending by 40%.
Newt: The way you described the question, you can’t. It’s all hopeless, we may as well buy Greek bonds and go down together. Big applause from crowd. This month in the Reagan admin, we created 1.1 million new jobs. Under Obama we created ZERO. Went from 2.2 trillion deficit to 2 trillion surplus when he left office. We can do it. Big applause.
Q: School administrators focus more on teaching to test. What as president would you do about massive overreach of government into classroom.
Johnson: Promises to submit balanced budget that includes abolishing Fed Dept of Education. American doesn’t understand that it is a negative to take Fed money.
Santorum: Schools doing worse with Fed interference. Customer is parents. Schools don’t serve customers. Parents have been convinced they don’t have that responsibility.
Gingrich: Profound state reform. Get rid of Dept. of Education regulation. K-12 Pell grants direct to parents.
Ron Paul: If you care about your children you will get the federal government out of the business of educating them. Get the government out completely. Everyone hates No Child Left Behind. Tax credits for people who opt out. HUGE APPLAUSE.
Perry: Lots of good ideas up here. Promote school choice. Vouchers. Charters. Dig against Romney for being in favor of Obama race to the top.
Romney: Education has to be held at local & state. Smaller classroom size driven by teacher unions. Hire best and brightest to be teachers. Will stand up to NEA.
Q: Did Perry say something that wasn’t true? Romney: Sect of Education doing a good thing by saying teachers should be evaluated. Better than what Obama did. Crowd is silent.
Bachmann: got involved in politics because of foster kids. Repeal all federal laws re education. Send all money back to states and local.
Cain: Cut all federal programs…remove strings. Get federal government out of trying to educate kids.
Huntsman: I signed 2nd voucher bill in US. Worked on early childhood literacy. Cut unfunded mandates. Localize. Tepid golf applause.
Q: Would you support each state enforcing immigration laws if federal government doesn’t?
Bachmann: Reprehensible that Obama has sued Arizona for trying to protect the people of Arizona. Would uphold sovereignty of USA. Build a fence along entire southern border & secure it, and enforce laws on books. Not allow taxpayer funded benefits for illegals or their kids.
Q: US workers have to compete with illegal aliens. Do you support E-Verify? Do you support penalties against employers who don’t?
Newt: Outsource E-Verify to American Express, Mastercard or Visa…they know how to run something like that. Easy as swiping card. Favor 100% control of border. English as language of government (huge applause). Modernize legal immigration.
Q: About illegal aliens and in-state tuition. Romney: in-state tuition for illegals is wrong. Costs $22,000 a year per student in Texas. Crowd applause. Repeats other GOP immigration talking points. Applause.
Q for Perry: You’re the candidate whose name came up most often about immigration. You have not tried to stop the illegals from coming. Are you going to exert an effort to stop the abuse of US citizens by illegals. 16,000 illegals’ children took advantage of in-state tuition in Texas.
Perry: No one on this stage has spent more on border security than me. Texas Ranger recon teams there now. Joined AZ in suit against Feds. Kids in Texas brought there by no fault of their own. Must educate them or they will become a drag on our economy. LOTS OF BOOS!
Q: Is Perry soft on illegal immigration?
Santorum: Perry is saying that unless we subsidize illegals’ kids, they can’t go. We’re saying they can go. They have to borrow money like anyone else. Don’t give them special treatment. Perry weak on border security.
Perry: Put the boots on the ground. Aviation assets.
Scuffle between Santorum & Perry. Crowd is turning on Perry.
Q: to Ron Paul on border fence. Do you know a lot of Americans who want to take their money out of the country? Ron Paul: There are trillions of $ overseas already because of tax policy. When countries destroy a currency, it leads to capital control and people control. Databanks…leads to national ID card. Attack BENEFITS for illegals–they are a magnet. No welfare, no in-state-tuition, no free healthcare (big ovation). That will solve immigration problem–illegals will have no reason to come here. Don’t ignore fact that in tough economic times, people and money want to leave the country. More applause.
Google poll: majority (47%) want to eliminate Department of Education.
Q: How would you approach middle East with threats from Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Authority.
Romney: President all wrong to apologize for America. Stand shoulder to shoulder with allies. Don’t negotiate for Israel. Support and defend Israel. Unacceptable for Iran to become nuclear nation.
Q: How would you respond to unilateral declaration of Palestinian state?
Herman Cain: Peace through strength and clarity. Met with Dept. Prime Minister of Israel. Israel will defend itself. DPM wasn’t sure how Obama Regime stood with Israel. If you mess with Israel, you are messing with U.S. If it was clear where U.S. stood they might have had second thoughts.
Q: About Pakistan–what if there were a coup. Build a relationship in region. To have a relationship with India. Know they are an ally with the U.S. Had chance to sell India upgraded F-16s. Allies must know we are their friends. Today we don’t have allies in the region.
Santorum: would keep U.S. troops in Iraq & Afghanistan until national security objective met. Work in concert with allies in region.
Q: Foreign aid: top question. When are we going to get someone in the White House and tell other countries they aren’t getting money from us anymore?
Gingrich: Couple of good reasons to review foreign aid. Encourage American jobs that make US and other country wealthier. Don’t give government to government money. Why give money to countries that vote against us in U.N.? May be 100+ nukes in Pakistan.
Q: Charter flights from Ft. Lauderdale to Cuba have resumed. How do you feel about that?
Gary Johnson: Biggest threat to national security is that WE’RE BANKRUPT. Trade promotes friendship. Establish those kinds of flights.
Michelle wants to weigh in. Michelle: State Dept’s website, 4 nations are state sponsors of terror. Cuba is one. We shouldn’t go there.
Huntsman: Difference of opinion on Foreign Policy. We must fix our core…blah blah blah. Bring home troops from Afghanistan. Polite applause. Yawn.
Santorum: Just because economy is sick doesn’t mean our country is sick. We should be fighting wars to win, not for politics.
Huntsman. Only Pakistan can save Pakistan. Only Afghanistan can save Afghanistan. America must save America. Good lord, I actually agree with the Hunstman animatronic. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Q: What is the limit of government injecting religion.
Michelle: We believe in freedom of conscience. Foundational principle. Shouldn’t prevent people from expressing personal beliefs.
Q from soldier in Iraq: In 2010, I had to lie about being gay. Do you intend to circumvent progress made by gay and lesbian service people.
Santorum: Sex has no place in military. DADT removal injects social policy into military. Should only be about national defense. Going forward, would reinstate DADT. Sex should not be an issue. Keep to yourself whether gay or straight.
Q for Ron Paul: if you believe life begins at conception, how do you support abortion for rape, incest, use of morning after pill in those cases?
Ron Paul: This should be a state issue. If someone is treated 24 hours after a rape, you have no way of knowing if she’s even pregnant. How will you police the day after pill? No one can outdo me on respect for life. The law doesn’t solve the problem. Only the moral character of the people will solve this problem, not the law. HUGE applause.
Q: Bad blood between Perry and George W. Bush. Perry: highly respects GWB. Differences in various issues.
Yawn. Who cares. Non-issue.
Herman Cain gets lovely applause for surviving Stage 4 colon and liver cancer.
Herman Cain: I would be dead under Obamacare. March 2006 was detected. Got all the tests, CAT scans, surgery, chemo, tests, and was cured in 9 months. Under Obamacare I would have died waiting for treatment. Treatment based on MY timetable not bureaucrat’s timetable. I had 30% chance of survival. Big ovation.
Q: Huntsman gets top question on heathcare from college kid who wants to stay on mommy & daddy’s insurance until he’s 26. I think of my daughter who has diabetes. Obamacare creating uncertainty. Let states experiment to find solutions. Do what we did in Utah. We don’t have affordable policies. Doesn’t answer question. Virtually no crowd response.
Gardisil question for Michelle Bachmann: You said it could cause retardation and other side effects. Do you stand by statement. Michelle denies making statement–was repeating what a mom told her. Michelle says issue is Perry mandating shot for 12-year-old girls for STD. Perry gave parental rights to a drug company. Problem was cronyism. Applause.
Perry: I got lobbied by 31-year-old to had stage 4 cervical cancer. Admits should have had opt in. Erred on the side of life. Will always err on side of life. Some applause but a LOT of boos.
Q for Perry: Texas has 25% uninsured residents. Feds treat TX like all other big states. TX has imposed toughest eligibility. Rank 49th in Medicaid coverage.
Perry: disagrees with analysis. Has tried to get waiver from Feds for years.
Q for Romney–Perry says we shouldn’t nominate Obama Lite (Romney).
Romney responds. Blah, blah, blah. Romneycare is good and bad. Different from Obamacare.
Perry: Americans just don’t know which Mitt they’re dealing with. 2nd Amendment, social programs, abortion, race to the top, Obamacare. Wait till tomorrow to see which one we’re talking to. Romney sucks! Tepid applause.
Romney. BLAH. Blah. Blah. Blah! No, you suck! Tepid applause.
Another useless catfight that tells us nothing.
MOVE ON, CHRIS!
Q: Obama promised Hope & Change. How will you turn this country around?
Huntsman: Human tragedy. Tax reform. Regulatory reform. Energy independence.
Herman Cain: Economic growth. 9/9/9 plan. LEADERSHIP. American people will develop confidence. Reagan. We were a shining city on a hill. We have slid down. Need leader to build back up.
Michelle Bachmann: Reach for brass ring of liberty. #1 reason no hiring = Obamacare. Will repeal.
Romney: Blah blah blah blah. Tough times. Blah blah. We’re patriotic. Blah. Out of time.
Perry: Americans want a leader in job creation. Kill Obamacare and job-killing regs. Lower tax rates. Make US energy independent.
Paul: Government destroys jobs, market creates them. Understand where business cycle comes from, how Federal Reserve has destroyed economy. Has warned for 20 years. Get rid of government interference & let free market work. HUGE ovation.
Gingrich: 32 years ago we were in same place. A leader came along. When your brother in law is unemployed it’s a recession. When you lose your job it’s a depression. Then Jimmy Carter loses his job, it’s a recovery. Barack Obama’s losing decisively will turn around economy.
Santorum: Reagan’s farewell address….blah blah.
I nodded off again.
Gary Johnson: My next door neighbor’s 2 dogs have created more shovel ready jobs than this president. Biggest ovation of night. Balance budget NOW. Not 10 years from now or 20 years from now. Throw out entire federal tax system and replace with Fair Tax. Huge ovation.
Q: Who would you choose as your VP among the others on stage?
Johnson: Ron Paul. The notion that this country is about liberty and freedom. Facing extraordinary crisis. Must face now, or we will be left with nothing. We must avoid it by acting NOW.
Santrorum: Newt. I agree with him more.
Gingrich: I have no idea. Won’t play this game show. What I do know–someone capable of being president. I won’t hurt any of their feelings by choosing one.
Ron Paul: I don’t plan to make a choice at the moment. I’m in 3rd place in national poll. As soon as I’m in top 2 I will start thinking about it. Too early right now.
Perry: Staying with game show idea. Herman Cain & Newt Gingrich’s love child. Applause.
Romney: Will have hard time getting that image out of my head. That & dogs. If you pick a VP you have to give a lot of thought. These people would all be better than what we have now.
Romney: We all have problems. Gov. Perry & I disagree. We all agree Obama needs to be former Pres. Obama.
Bachmann: Strong constitutional conservative. Every 4 years we are told we have to settle. I don’t think that’s true. Obama has lowest public approval of any in modern time. Choose conservatives.
Cain: This is a game. It’s hypothetical. I’ll play. If governor Romney would throw out his plan, he has a shot. I would otherwise go with Speaker Gingrich.
Huntsman: Romney & Perry won’t be around, will bludgeon each other to death. Herman Cain because of his selection of ties and 9/9/9. Shakes Herman’s hand.
The presidential election is still fourteen months away, but it’s smart to start thinking about how you can use your own unique and individual talents to help defeat Obama, the Left, and the permanent political class that’s created the ruinous financial situation our country faces. Kevin DuJan has begun conversations with his own circle of friends and personal networks to encourage people he knows to contribute their efforts to the 2012 campaign, in ways they all feel comfortable doing. If you are reading this, you are the Resistance…even if you don’t yet realize it.