Top GOP Pollster to GOP: Reverse On Gay Issues

Why is gay marriage even a national issue?  Marriage licenses are issued by the County Government in the States not in DC.  As a Reagan Conservative I believe in limited government which means to stay out of my life at the national level for anything other then what the Constitution gives them the authority to do.  If not in the Constitution with its amendments, then it belongs as the state level where all social issues including abortion which should have stayed a state issue except for funding.  Do not believe my tax dollars should be used for funding ANY abortion.  Also believe because partial birth abortion is killing a viable baby it should be outlawed nationwide because it crosses into what I would consider murder of an innocent child which anyone with the least bit of empathy would want outlawed.

As for gay marriage, I consider that a lawyer's dream because they will have more clients lined up to make them richer.  I don't care as it doesn't affect my life.  I would care if the Federal or State Government told churches who they should marry.  There is a difference between a civil ceremony and one in a Church.

Romney's comments on gay marriage below also go into the psychological harm that could come to children raised by gay parents and goes on to say that all children should be raised by a Father and Mother. He only gave credibility to a single parent whose spouse had died as being worthy.  What about single parents through no fault of their own find themselves divorced.  The party of no abortion who wants women not to get an abortion but to raise their child is now headed by a man who thinks the child should have a father and a mother only.  IOTW, you could say he is attacking the woman who decided to keep her baby as being unworthy to be a single parent.  If you don't believe me, here are Romney's own words about gay marriage and raising children:




I hear his words and ask myself what happened to the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan?  When did it become the party of hate towards people you don't agree with philosophically?  It is hard for me as I have been a Republican since the first time I walked doors as young kid for Republicans in our County.  I don't believe in boycotts, I don't believe in banning books in my local library, and I don't believe that the Country revolves around social issues which seems to be the focus of the Republican Party today.

When you have the leaders of Congress dissing candidates who actually believe in limited government as nutcases then there is a real problem.  Senator Miniority Leader McConnell, talks about limited government like it is the plague.  Frankly I am huge believer in limited government and getting our economic house in order along with a strong military and protecting our borders which seems to be putting me at odds with the Republican Party of the Northeast Liberals who seem to have combined with the social conservatives which makes a strange alliance.

Read this Memo that was circulated by a 2004 Bush campaign pollster. It sums up a lot of what many of us  believe.  Republicans now have a Massachusetts liberal running who is liberal on most issues but gay marriage.  You need to remember that gays are only welcome in the Mormon Church if they are not in a gay relationship.  

11 May 2012 10:39 PM
Andrew Sullivan 

Top GOP Pollster to GOP: Reverse On Gay Issues 

Below is a remarkable document. It's a memo circulated by Jan van Lohuizen, a highly respected Republican pollster, (he polled for George W. Bush in 2004), to various leading Republican operatives, candidates and insiders. It's on the fast-shifting poll data on marriage equality and gay rights in general, and how that should affect Republican policy and language. And the pollster's conclusion is clear: if the GOP keeps up its current rhetoric and positions on gays and lesbians, it is in danger of marginalizing itself to irrelevance or worse. 

Read the bluntness of this. This is the GOP establishment talking to itself. And the Republican pollster who arguably knows more about the politics of the gay issue than anyone else (how else to explain the Ohio campaign of 2004?) is advising them in no uncertain terms that they need to evolve and fast, if they're not going to damage their brand for an entire generation: 

Original Document can be viewed at The Daily Beast

The last paragraph is, to my mind, the most remarkable. It's advising Republican candidates to emphasize the conservative nature of gay marriage, to say how it encourages personal responsibility, commitment, stability and family values. It uses Dick Cheney's formula (which was for a couple of years, the motto of this blog) that "freedom means freedom for everyone." And it uses David Cameron's argument that you can be for gay marriage because you are a conservative. 

And the walls came tumbling down.
(More legible transcript of the memo below:)

In view of this week’s news on the same sex marriage issue, here is a summary of recent survey findings on same sex marriage: 

1. Support for same sex marriage has been growing and in the last few years support has grown at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down. A review of public polling shows that up to 2009 support for gay marriage increased at a rate of 1% a year. Starting in 2010 the change in the level of support accelerated to 5% a year. The most recent public polling shows supporters of gay marriage outnumber opponents by a margin of roughly 10% (for instance: NBC / WSJ poll in February / March: support 49%, oppose 40%). 

2. The increase in support is taking place among all partisan groups. While more Democrats support gay marriage than Republicans, support levels among Republicans are increasing over time. The same is true of age: younger people support same sex marriage more often than older people, but the trends show that all age groups are rethinking their position. 

3. Polling conducted among Republicans show that majorities of Republicans and Republican leaning voters support extending basic legal protections to gays and lesbians. These include majority Republican support for: 

a. Protecting gays and lesbians against being fired for reasons of sexual orientation
b. Protections against bullying and harassment
c. Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
d. Right to visit partners in hospitals
e. Protecting partners against loss of home in case of severe medical emergencies or death
f. Legal protection in some form for gay couples whether it be same sex marriage or domestic partnership (only 29% of Republicans oppose legal recognition in any form).

Recommendation: A statement reflecting recent developments on this issue along the following lines:

“People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to gay and lesbian couples; gay and lesbian couples should not face discrimination and their relationship should be protected under the law. People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits." 

Other thoughts / Q&A: Follow up to questions about affirmative action: 

“This is not about giving anyone extra protections or privileges, this is about making sure that everyone – regardless of sexual orientation – is provided the same protections against discrimination that you and I enjoy.” 

Why public attitudes might be changing:

“As more people have become aware of friends and family members who are gay, attitudes have begun to shift at an accelerated pace. This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.” 

Conservative fundamentals: 

“As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.

So many families have members of their family who are gay.  Are they supposed to tell them they don't have the right to commit to someone they want to spend the rest of their life with and have all the benefits that heterosexual couples have when they marry?  If they marry and then divorce, there will be under the same rules as heterosexual couples and family practice lawyers will be making more money.  If they want to go through that, it is their business not mine.  I don't want someone telling me how to live, and I certainly have no right to tell others how to live.

There will never be a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage IMHO as that is a slippery slope.  Are they going to tell people next that you cannot marry someone who is not your same race or a blonde blue haired person has to marry the same?  Any amendment added to the Constitution has to be thought out and benefit every American not single out a group.  The issue of gay marriage belongs at the state level not the federal level so the idea of a Constitutional amendment is wrong.

Personally don't think alcohol should have been banned in the Constitution either.  What did it accomplish?  Making a lot of people very rich and making it against the law to make or sell liquor.  Finally the Congress wised up and repealed the amendment.

The amendments should be reserved for our free speech, right to assemble, freedom of religion (right to worship as we please), and many other issues that are guaranteed rights to every citizen of this Country.

My two cents on the issue of gay marriage!

Natural Born Citizen versus Native Born Citizen

It is not about the birther movement but that every American citizen has a right to know if ANY candidate for President meets the eligibility requirements to run as a 'natural' born citizen which means having two American citizens as parents. If one parent is not an American citizen, then the person is ineligible to run for President. How hard is that to understand?

Most of us learned in civics that to be 'natural' born, you had to be born to two American parents on American soil or your parents had to be in the military or Government employees. In doing the research it looks like that has evolved to two American citizens would be able to convey natural born citizenship to their baby even if the child was born overseas. In the case of Obama that part doesn't matter as his Dad was a British subject at the time of his birth.

We find the fact that Donald Trump is not afraid to ask the tough questions and is shining the light on this issue of 'natural' born refreshing. Trump is getting crucified in the media and by some Republican/conservative pundits/candidates for daring to question Obama. Why? What is being hidden? Sarah Palin immediately backed Trump in his quest to find the truth, but where are the other candidates and some Governor's? Cowering in a corner somewhere or coming out saying Obama was born in Hawaii? They miss the boat as where he was born is irrelevant if one parent is not an American citizen. His mother was only 17 and not old enough at that time to convey citizenship, but putting that aside, Barack Obama was a British subject at the time of Obama's birth which makes Obama ineligible to ever run for President or Vice President.

Today we see once again that CNN is carrying the water for Obama saying he was born in Hawaii. Hate to break the news to CNN but if Barrack Obama was Obama's father then he is does NOT meet the eligibility requirements to run for President or Vice President.

This is not only about Obama but any potential candidate where his parents came to this Country and were not Naturalized American citizens when the baby was born. Very simple to understand but it is going over the heads of so many people that we decided to dedicate a blog post to Natural Born versus Native Born.

There are only two positions, President and Vice President, in the United States Constitution where natural born is required which rules out dual citizenship at anytime in the life of the candidate. That would affect any candidate born in this Country whose parents were not naturalized or native born citizens at the time of the candidate's birth.

Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution:

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

Decided to look further into what is a natural born citizen and found a website dealing with the subject of a natural born citizen:

Justice Hugo Black in DUNCAN v LOUISIANA Indicates Obama Would Not Be Eligible: Ineligibility Echoed by Former Attorney General Jeremiah Black

According to Justice Black, Bingham’s words uttered on the floor of the House are the most reliable source. Bingham made three statements, none of them challenged on the Floor, which indicate that a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to parents who were US citizens. Obama does not fit that description since, at the time of his birth, his father was a British subject.

Obama’s own web site, throughout the entire 2008 Presidential campaign, stated that his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom:

“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

ATTORNEY GENERAL JEREMIAH BLACK

According to a July 18, 1859 official proclamation by former Attorney General Black (as reported in the New York Times on July 20, 1859), only those who never owed fealty to another nation may be President:

“Here none but a native can be President…A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization…threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been. “

Here again we see a person in high office stating that to be President one must never have owed fealty to another nation. We see the true legal requirement that the President never owed allegiance to any foreign sovereign. This clean natural citizenship is one which can only be present at birth. Since the naturalized citizen can’t be President because he once owed allegiance to a foreign nation, the same goes for any other citizen who owed allegiance to a foreign nation.

Obama admits to having owed fealty, aka allegiance, to the United Kingdom at the time of his birth. Therefore, upon the authority of Representative Bingham, Justice Black and Attorney General Black, Obama is not eligible to the office of President.

If "Dreams from my Father" is correct and the birth certificate says that Barrack Obama is the father then as stated before Obama regardless of place of birth was not eligible to run for President as his father was a British subject. If the parents were naturalized citizens and gave birth, the baby would be a natural born citizen as his parents were citizens of the United States at the time of his birth.

Too many people mix up American citizen with what the requirements are to run for President. If a child is born to Mexican citizens in the United States that child is an American citizen but cannot run for President as both parents were not American at the time of the birth. If the Mexican parents become naturalized citizens before the birth of their child, then the child is a natural born citizen.

More from the American Thinkeron the subject:

Native born” means someone born on U.S soil. “Natural born” means born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents. If the Founding Fathers had meant “native born” they would have written “native born” in the U.S. Constitution, but they didn't. They wrote: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." They specifically stated “natural born Citizen,” a term which all educated persons at the time knew meant, per the nomenclature of the time, born on U.S. soil to citizen parents.

The United States Constitution was written in clear and concise terms by extremely intelligent and articulate men. To claim or act as if natural born means nothing more than born on U.S. soil assaults both the U.S. Constitution and the great intelligence of the Founding Fathers. That most Americans are poorly educated these days is no justification whatsoever for violating, or advocating violating, the United States Constitution. As for Hussein Obama, if somebody gets away with murder that does not mean that all murders should henceforth get a pass. Again, why is American Thinker posting articles that advocate making war on the United States Constitution?

The American Thinker is about as clear and concise as you can get and leaves us with the question of "Why are the pundits and some Republican candidates who want to 'move on to other subjects' ignoring that part of the equation?" The words racist, birther, etc. has been used to describe anyone who dares to question Obama on his qualifications to be President. Why? If his Dad was Barrack Obama as alleged in the book, then he had no right to run for President no matter where he was born. If his Dad was not Barrack Obama, then we have a right to know who was the father and was he an American citizen.  If that is the case then we know Obama perpetrated a fraud on the citizens of the United States pretending to be a son of Kenya.

There has also been discussion about being born on foreign soil to two United States citizens if the child would be considered a natural born citizen. We know for a fact that children of military or US Government employees stationed overseas would give their child natural born status. But what about others?

The various sites have a lot of discussion that has been in the courts including the Supreme Court about what it takes to give a citizenship status versus a natural born citizen.

The 14th Amendment requires “exclusive allegiance” to the United States either at birth or at the time of naturalization.

This rules out dual citizenship which a child is given if one parent is from another Country and requires that child to renounce one of the citizenship's at 18 during the time period we are discussing with Obama. Know for a fact that is the case as I have two cousins born to an English Mom and American Dad who at 18 had to decide with Country to declare their allegiance.

It also would seem to state that if two American citizens have a child overseas, they can convey 'natural' born status to their child. That part may be up for debate but the part that both parents have to be American citizens is not.

Why was John McCain required to provide proof he was eligible to run when his parents were in the military and he was born out of the Country while his Dad was on deployment to the Canal Zone? Best guess we have is that they wanted to make sure that both parents were American citizens and that would give John McCain natural born status. Why didn't the same Senate require Obama to provide the same detailed information?

Will someone explain why it is so wrong for American citizens to want to know the background of a Presidential candidate including birth certificate, school, passport, and health records, where a candidate has spent their life and who were his friend and mentors? Seems pretty clear cut if you are going to run for President, that you are going to be an open book, but guess we were wrong. According to some pundits, we have no right to know anything about Obama except what he tells us in his books especially "Dreams from my Father" which is now widely considered to be written by Bill Ayers with some of the material about Ayers not Obama. Why do we not have a right to know about the man who was elected President with almost 'zero' background available and what was available is up for debate?

We hope this has cleared up the distinction between native born and natural born because there is a definite difference.

Secretary of Defense Gates on Odessey Dawn: No vital national interest or imminent threat in Libya

If there is no threat to the United States or its interests by Libya, why are we sending our military into the skies of Iraq as part of the UN Odessey Dawn?

There had been no plans to do a post today until Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared on ABC 'This Week' hosted this morning by Jake Tapper. Hard to believe they paid big bucks to the former CNN correspondent Christine Amanpour to host 'This Week'when Jake Tapper is so good and she is horrible as a host. Tapper should be doing the Sunday morning ABC show every week -- we would actually get the facts not spin and be willing to watch instead of waiting for what was said to come out. Don't want to start a Sunday morning off by watching Amanpour.

Why some people still push Hillary Clinton for President is beyond us and for anyone who needs reminded read her remarks this morning from 'This Week' which are highlighted in the Hot Air article below. She doesn't understand the Constitution or the War Powers Act (WPA) any better than Obama.

Constitutional division of War Powers:

The Constitution divides war powers between the Congress and the President. This division was intended by the framers to ensure that wars would not be entered into easily: it takes two keys, not one, to start the engine of war.

The Constitution's division of powers leaves the President with some exclusive powers as Commander-in-Chief (such as decisions on the field of battle), Congress with certain other exclusive powers (such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort), and a sort of "twilight zone" of concurrent powers. In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires there to be:

“(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces”

before a President can send US military forces into a new conflict.

The WPA is pretty straight forward and we certainly don't see the wiggle room that Clinton has taken.  It is becoming more apparent that Clinton and Obama ignored not only the Constitution but the WPA rushing the United States into this conflict in Libya without consulting Congress. As reported earlier, Vice President Joe Biden as a Senator said that he would start impeachment against any President ignoring the WPA. Looks to us like Obama and Clinton need impeached after this fiasco in Libya ignoring the Constitutional duties and the WPA.

Clinton brags about the coalition the United States (Clinton) has put together but it is way smaller than WWII and half the size of the Bush Coalition on Iraq plus Bush spent six months getting Congressional approval before launching the strike on Iraq which is a huge difference than the Obama/Clinton days rush to war. Add to the fact that Obama launched the war effort while in Brazil by a recorded message and you have two people who are so far over their head in governing.

Obama and Clinton in this imperial administration are creating a very dangerous precedent and putting our military in harm's way without regard to Congress. A Republican President would have been aggressively attacked by the likes of Obama and Clinton when they were in the Senate for doing what those two have done.

Now we have the Secretary of Defense finally admitting there is no vital national interest or imminent threat in Libya before Odyssey Dawn was launched. Wonder if someday Gates, Obama and Hillary are going to admit that the rebels in Western Libya who they are supporting are members of Islamic Jihadists aligned with Al Qaeda? Clinton should have been the first to admit the fact since the State Department has the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) listed as a terrorist group in Libya. Why let a little detail like that stand in the way.

What started out this morning as a post about Gates and Clinton is now turning into much more. While researching the State Department Designated Terrorist Group, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), we discovered that the United States has probably been funneling arms to the rebels for sometime. Guess that little fact is the reason that Obama left the door open on arming the rebels. We also learned that On November 3, 2007, the LIFG was welcomed into Al Qaeda.  Since this LIFG is officially part of Al Qaeda so does that mean we are fighting alongside Al Qaeda now thanks to Obama and Clinton?

As mentioned earlier we are now learning that the United States has been funneling arms to this terrorist organization as they consider them rebels against Gadhafi. The CIA is really lame if they were involved in this operation because even the State Department website lists the LIFD as terrorists with known ties to Al Qaeda. The New American.com has a must read, well researched article about the LIFD:

The organization is officially on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. But according to countless news reports, the U.S. government has been covertly funneling arms to the Libyan rebels for weeks, via Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other nations.

Islamic extremists around the world have actually announced their support of the Libyan rebels as well. And as Raven Clabough pointed out in an article for The New American, a powerful coalition of leftist and globalist forces are also backing the war against Gadhafi’s regime.

The more I read from the article, the scarier all of this has become. Looks like Obama/Clinton got the United States involved in Libya on the side of Al Qaeda to oust Gadhafi. This whole effort in Libya to protect civilians makes no sense when Obama and others in Administration are saying they want Gadhafi taken out in favor of the rebels.  The UN Resolution specifically calls for civilians to be protected and forbids targeting of Gadhafi but Obama and Clinton seemed to be ignoring the UN Resolution as well. Was Gadhafi trying to rid Libya of Al Qaeda? We will probably never know the truth because we are sure not getting the truth from Obama or Clinton.

This excerpt from the The New American.com should make most Americans stop and ask the question, "What is the United States doing involved in Libya?"

The Obama administration’s UN-backed military intervention against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi is aiding al-Qaeda, which, according to media reports citing high-level commanders in the terror group and Libyan rebel leaders, is deeply tied to the revolution. When the dust settles, the anti-American Islamic extremists could easily emerge as the new rulers of that nation, or at least a part of it. And al-Qaeda is already reportedly grabbing up  (see excerpt below) advanced military weaponry there. 

AL-QAEDA'S offshoot in North Africa has snatched surface-to-air missiles from an arsenal in Libya during the civil strife there, Chad's President says.

Idriss Deby Itno did not say how many surface-to-air missiles were stolen, but told the African weekly Jeune Afrique that he was "100 per cent sure" of his assertion.

"The Islamists of al-Qaeda took advantage of the pillaging of arsenals in the rebel zone to acquire arms, including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries in Tenere," a desert region of the Sahara that stretches from northeast Niger to western Chad, Deby said in the interview.

Ironically, perhaps, Gadhafi has been claiming for weeks that al-Qaeda and drug use were responsible for the uprisings. "Bin Laden ... this is the enemy who is manipulating people," he told state television in late February. "Do not be swayed by bin Laden."

Most observers assumed the allegations were deliberate lies or the delusions of a madman trying to keep the reins of power. But it turns out that the claims of al-Qaeda involvement were at least partially correct.

The man identified in news reports as the leader of Libya’s rebellion, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, actually battled U.S. and coalition forces during the invasion of Afghanistan a decade ago. He was captured in 2002, handed over to U.S. authorities, and eventually released in Libya in 2008. Now, al-Hasidi, with U.S. and international air support, is supposedly leading the anti-Gadhafi revolution.

A Reuters report citing Qatar-based Gulf News said earlier this month — before Western intervention became official — that senior al-Qaeda commander Abu Yahya al-Libi released a videotaped message urging rebels in Libya to continue the battle. He also warned that failure to topple the Gadhafi regime would be unacceptable.

“The Libyan people have suffered at the hands of Kaddafi for more than 40 years.... He used the Libyans as a testing ground for his violent, rambling and disgusting thoughts,” the alleged terrorist leader said in the video. "Retreating will mean decades of harsher oppression and greater injustices than what you have endured.”

The al-Qaeda leader also blasted the U.S. government and other Western regimes — now fighting the same battle he praised — for propping up dictatorships in the region. By press time, Gulf News was not able to independently verify the authenticity of the video posted on Jihadist websites.

More recently, Libyan rebel leader al-Hasidi, who fought U.S. troops in Afghanistan, offered another startling revelation. He admitted in an interview with an Italian newspaper that Islamic warriors from Libya, whom he had recruited to battle Western forces in Iraq, are now actually fighting alongside U.S. and international forces to help topple Kaddafi.

The Daily Telegraph, in an article entitled "Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links,” quoted al-Hasidi as saying that his warriors "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists." He also praised al-Qaeda, saying they are “good Muslims ... fighting against the invader."

According to U.S. and British government sources cited by the paper, al-Hasidi is part of the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). The organization represents the second largest contingent of foreign fighters in Iraq battling coalition forces.

Excerpt: Please read more details at The New American.com

Ed Morrisey's comments at Hot Air from the interview this morning on ABC by Jake Tapper with Gates and Clinton are very telling about how little Hillary Clinton regards the Constitution or the War Powers Act as she spins and lies:

Gates: No vital national interest or imminent threat in Libya before Odyssey Dawn
Ed Morrisey
Hot Air
March 27, 2011, 10:15 a.m.

Jake Tapper reminds ABC why they foolishly spent money on Christiane Amanpour last year for the anchor job on This Week with a tough joint interview of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Tapper asks Gates exactly what vital national interest the US has in Libya and what kind of imminent threat to our security Moammar Gaddafi posed at the beginning of Operation Odyssey Dawn. Gates says … none in either case:

On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Gates, “Do you think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States?”

“No, no,” Gates said in a joint appearance with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “It was not — it was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest and it was an interest for all of the reasons Secretary Clinton talked about. The engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake,” he said.

(snip)

Hillary felt the need to swoop to the rescue. She claimed that Obama didn’t need to go to Congress because this coalition is so darned multilateral:

Tapper asked Clinton, “Why not go to Congress?”

“Well, we would welcome congressional support,” the Secretary said, “but I don’t think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago.”

“I think that this had a limited timeframe, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling,” Clinton said.

Obviously, the Secretary of State has trouble with both math and the law. There is no “multilateral” waiver in either the WPR or the Constitution, but even if there were, Obama would be the least likely President to qualify for it. This coalition is the smallest since World War II involving the US in military action, only half the size of George W. Bush’s Iraq War coalition.

She also fails vocabulary test in her claim that the mission has a limited timeframe. Later, Gates says that no one knows how long this will drag on:

On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Secretary of Defense Gates how much longer we might be there.

"Some NATO officials say this could be three months, but people in the Pentagon think it could be far longer than that. Do you think we’ll be gone by the end of the year? Will the mission be over by the end of the year?” Tapper asked

“I don’t think anybody knows the answer to that,” Gates said.

Excerpt: Read more at Hot Air

Tomorrow night you can tune in and watch Obama lie on his 'war' in Libya as he addresses the Nation. 

Celebrating American Independence Day -- 4th of July 2010

These brave men of the 2nd Continental Congress were willing to sacrifice it all to become free and independent states from England because of the tyrannical rule of George III. This action came after Great Britain ignored the outcome of the 1st Continental Congress and instead sent more troops to enforce the laws of King George III on the colonies including taxation.

The First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia's Carpenters Hall on September 5, 1774. The idea of such a meeting was advanced a year earlier by Benjamin Franklin, but failed to gain much support until after the Port of Boston was closed in response to the Boston Tea Party.

Twelve of the 13 colonies sent delegates. Georgia decided against roiling the waters; they were facing attacks from the restive Creek on their borders and desperately needed the support of regular British soldiers.

The Congress, which continued in session until late October, did not advocate independence; it sought rather to right the wrongs that had been inflicted on the colonies and hoped that a unified voice would gain them a hearing in London.

King George III became furious at the document he received addressing the grievances of the colonies and instead of listening, his answer was to send in more Red Coats to show the colonies who was in charge and to get them back in line. He should have realized that many of the people in the colonies were rugged individualists who went to the New World to get away from the tyrannical rule of the British Kings. There were some who were loyal subjects of the Crown but many were independent thinkers who when taxed by King George III on their tea threw it in the Boston Harbor in what has become known as The Boston Tea Party. This same spirit of Independence throughout the Massachusetts Bay Colony led to the confrontation by farmers who made up the local militia and were willing to stand up to the Red Coats of Britain.


The first battle for American Independence took place on April 19, 1975 in the Battle at Lexington Green:

Massachusetts Colony was a hotbed of sedition in the spring of 1775. Preparations for conflict with the Royal authority had been underway throughout the winter with the production of arms and munitions, the training of militia (including the minutemen), and the organization of defenses. In April, General Thomas Gage, military governor of Massachusetts decided to counter these moves by sending a force out of Boston to confiscate weapons stored in the village of Concord and capture patriot leaders Samuel Adams and John Hancock reported to be staying in the village of Lexington.

The atmosphere was tense, word of General Gage's intentions spread through Boston prompting the patriots to set up a messaging system to alert the countryside of any advance of British troops. Paul Revere arranged for a signal to be sent by lantern from the steeple of North Church - one if by land, two if by sea. On the night of April 18, 1775 the lantern's alarm sent Revere, William Dawes and other riders on the road to spread the news. The messengers cried out the alarm, awakening every house, warning of the British column making its way towards Lexington. In the rider's wake there erupted the peeling of church bells, the beating of drums and the roar of gun shots - all announcing the danger and calling the local militias to action.

In the predawn light of April 19, the beating drums and peeling bells summoned between 50 and 70 militiamen to the town green at Lexington. As they lined up in battle formation the distant sound of marching feet and shouted orders alerted them of the Redcoats' approach. Soon the British column emerged through the morning fog and the confrontation that would launch a nation began.

This action in Lexington and Concord led to the 2nd Continental Congress and the Birth of a New Nation. What King George III started in the 1760s led to the 13 colonies voting to declare their independence from Britain on July 4th, 1776. The War for Independence was officially sanctioned and now the 13 colonies joined as one to form and support the Continental Army led by General George Washington to throw out the Red Coats and the rule of King George III.

From the History Channel:

By the 1760s, after a century and a half of British rule, tensions were running high between American colonists and royal officials on both sides of the Atlantic. In an effort to drum up cash for its military campaigns abroad, the British Parliament passed a series of unpopular laws levying taxes on everyday goods in the 13 colonies. Meanwhile, new political ideologies from republicanism to John Locke’s ideas on liberalism resonated with many colonists, including future fathers of the Revolution such as Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. The country’s fate was sealed as these explosive factors collided on the streets of Boston, in the meeting halls of Philadelphia and, eventually, on the battlefields of Lexington and Concord.

On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee proposed a resolution to the Continental Congress stating that "these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States." Four days later Congress appointed a committee to draft a declaration embodying the intent of the resolution. The committee, consisting of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston, pressed on Jefferson the task of writing their report.

On June 28 the committee submitted to Congress "A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress Assembled." The Congress passed Lee's original resolution on July 2, thus deciding in favor of independence, but took three days to debate and amend the committee's draft declaration before approving it on July 4. "The Unanimous Declaration of the 13 United States of America" (the Continental Congress never officially called it the Declaration of Independence) was engrossed on parchment, and on August 2 every member present signed it, the remaining members signing later.


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

These words from the original Declaration of Independence are as true today as they were in July of 1776. We the People have a right to stand up for our freedoms. That is why today's Tea Party movement was launched by many people who had never taken part in the political system but had it with the attacks on our liberties and our freedom of speech. In the summer of 2009, they attended Town Halls across America but were rebuffed by their elected Representatives time and time who chose to spin or quit having Town Halls.

For anyone who says there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, think again, as the vast majority of Republicans welcomed the Town Halls and were willing to answer the questions. Some of those who didn't have already lost their elections. Democrats refused to hold Town Halls or would cut them short if they didn't like the questions. The mainstream media has trashed the people of the Tea Parties to no avail. Individual Tea Party members are not led by any one person or group but are individual thinkers and are taking the action to become involved. They have joined with other like minded individuals as We The People Take Back Our Country!

Democrats Leadership by their actions don't care about the 'one man, one vote' which is guaranteed by the Constitution. Many of them see nothing wrong with counting fraudulent votes because it furthers their cause. That is not only illegal to count votes of dead people, Micky Mouse, and other names who are not eligible to vote but it goes against what our Founding Fathers fought so hard to achieve.

It is time for 'We the People' to celebrate this 4th of July by pledging our support to evict the Democrats from Congress on November 2nd who no longer believe in the Declaration of Independence, in the Constitution, on in the Rule of Law. Deeming a budget passed that has not been approved by Committee action or on the floor of the House, is a direct slam at our Founding Fathers and what they envisioned for the United States of America. On November 2nd at the ballot box in precincts throughout America we will take our Country back from tyrannical rule of the Democrats in the White House, Senate, and House.

Please join the fight by supporting candidates who support The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and Rule of Law and who pledge to right the ship of the United States by securing borders as part of our National Security, enforcing strict fiscal conservatism to cut programs and quit spending our tax dollars like it was the personal piggy bank of the Obama and the Democrats. Most importantly we need to make the United States once again a Country our friends can depend on and our enemies fear.

It is not going to happen over night but in January 2013, we will have finished the job of righting the ship. Then it is up to every American lover of freedom to keep that ship righted and never again buy into a candidate with no experience at anything except community organizing who promises 'Hope and Change.' We have to be vigilant every day and make sure the people we elect are upholding our freedoms guaranteed to us by our Constitution and by the Patriots have fought over the years for our freedoms. We never again can become complacent.

God Bless America and the men and women who fight for our freedoms every day of the year. Remember our soldiers around the world this 4th of July and say a prayer for their safety.

Cong Pence Details Proposed Government Takeover on the House Floor

Cong Mike Pence today on the floor of the House was able to conveny in few words what this Healthcare is all about -- Government takeover of healthcare by any means. His last paragraph sent a clear notice to the Democrat Leadership that Republicans are not rolling over and will fight anything Unconstitutional about the process or the bill:

"The Democrat health care bill that's being brought through the Congress this week is nothing more than a government takeover of health care, and the American people know it. I know the administration doesn't like us to use that phrase, but come on. When you mandate that every American purchase health insurance whether they want it or need it or not, you mandate that every business provide it, you create a massive government-run bureaucracy exchange that mandates what's in insurance plans, you wrap that all in about $1 trillion worth of spending, that's a government takeover of health care.

"But what's really remarkable about this whole business is that not only the American people rejected this plan but Democrats are so desperate to pass it that they're willing to trample on the traditional rules of the House and Senate and even trample on the Constitution of the United States to get it done.

"Well that would be news to the Founders of this country, and a betrayal of the commitment of every Member of this Congress to the American people. I urge the Speaker, if you have the votes for the Senate bill, bring it to the floor. If you don't, let's scrap the bill and start over for the American people."

Having leaders such as Mike Pence on the side of the Constitution should send a clear message to any Democrat that you should think twice before going against the Constitution and the American people. Please view Cong Pence's remarks that were made today on the floor of the House:

Honduras votes against Manuel Zelaya reinstatement

This has been a total disaster for the Obama Administration and particularly SOS Hillary Clinton as they supported former Honduran President Zelaya who was ousted constitutionally in Honduras. Happy to hear that the Honduran Parliament is telling Pres Obama and his Administration to go pound sand according to Hot Air.

We never could figure out why Obama chose to side with Zelaya who wanted to stay in power against his own Constitution. This was another in a long line of decisions by Obama that favored the enemies of the United States and trashed our allies. We have asked the question before, but it is still pertinent today -- Whose side is Obama on -- dictators or constitutionally elected or appointed officials? Looks to us like dictators keep winning out.

Great to see that the Honduras Parliament understands their own Constitution while Zelaya and his lackies (Obama and Clinton) in the United States don't.

From Times Online
December 3, 2009

Honduras votes against Manuel Zelaya reinstatement
Times Online

MPs in Honduras have voted overwhelmingly against reinstating President Manuel Zelaya, shrugging off international pressure four months after a coup that has isolated one of the poorest countries in the Americas.

As the vote continued, more than two-thirds of members of Congress had voted not to return the deposed president to power for the remainder of his term, which ends on January 27, as Washington and many Latin American governments had urged.

Honduran media put the ongoing vote at 98-12, well in excess of the simple majority needed in the 128-member, single-chamber Congress for the vote against restoring Mr Zelaya to succeed.

Mr Zelaya, who listened to the proceedings from the Brazilian Embassy, where he has been given sanctuary since he returned to the country, had said he would not return for a token two months even if asked.

He urged other governments not to restore ties with the incoming administration of Porfirio Lobo, who won Sunday's presidential election.

Honduras's interim leaders have proven remarkably resistant to diplomatic arm-twisting since the June 28 coup, rejecting demands that the deposed president be restored to his office before the previously scheduled election.

Politician after politician insisted that they were right the first time when they voted to oust Mr Zelaya for ignoring a Supreme Court order to cancel a referendum on changing the constitution.

That vote happened hours after soldiers stormed Mr Zelaya's residence and sent him into exile in his pajamas.

His opponents accuse him of trying to hang on to power by lifting a ban on presidential re-election, as his leftist ally Hugo Chavez has done in Venezuela. Mr Zelaya denies such intentions.

"My vote is [a lesson] for anyone who pretends to perpetuate himself in power. My vote is so that my son can look at me and say 'Dad, you defended democracy," said Antonio Rivera of Mr Lobo's conservative National Party.

Excerpt: Read Full Article at Times Online