Obama the Lawless: 2013 Archives


Millennials Abandon Obama and Obamacare
A majority of America's youngest adults would vote to recall the president.
By Ron Fournier in the National Journal

Young Americans are turning against Barack Obama and Obamacare, according to a new survey of millennials, people between the ages of 18 and 29 who are vital to the fortunes of the president and his signature health care law.

The most startling finding of Harvard University's Institute of Politics: A majority of Americans under age 25--the youngest millennials--would favor throwing Obama out of office.

The survey, part of a unique 13-year study of the attitudes of young adults, finds that America's rising generation is worried about its future, disillusioned with the U.S. political system, strongly opposed to the government's domestic surveillance apparatus, and drifting away from both major parties. It blows a gaping hole in the belief among many Democrats that Obama's two elections signaled a durable grip on the youth vote.

Indeed, millennials are not so hot on their president.

Obama's approval rating among young Americans is just 41 percent, down 11 points from a year ago, and now tracking with all adults. While 55 percent said they voted for Obama in 2012, only 46 percent said they would do so again.

When asked if they would want to recall various elected officials, 45 percent of millennials said they would oust their member of Congress; 52 percent replied "all members of Congress" should go; and 47 percent said they would recall Obama. The recall-Obama figure was even higher among the youngest millennials, ages 18 to 24, at 52 percent.

Continue reading to see full polls. . .



There is a lot to catch up on!

The Chatham RTC and our colleagues in the Lower Cape - the RTCs of Harwich, Orleans, Eastham, Brewster and Truro -- worked hard to put together what I will call a magnificent observance of the 150th anniversary of President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address on November 19th, 2013. It was held exactly 150 years to the day after President Lincoln put into words what the war had achieved -- fulfilling the promise in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal.

We chose the elegant Wequassett in Harwich as a fitting location to celebrate such a momentous day in America's history. It was also fitting that Massachusetts was one of just a handful of states honoring the day -- Gettysburg itself, the Lincoln Library in Springfield, Illinois and Lincoln, Nebraska, renamed that shortly after the assassination.

More than 100 citizens of the Lower Cape gathered to honor President Lincoln and reflect on the meaning packed into his 272 words. Our special guest Republican candidate for Governor Charlie Baker not only came out of respect for President Lincoln and his message, but the urgency that should be directed towards winning all Republican contests in November 2014 to achieve yet another Rebirth of Freedom. As Charlie said,"I am proud to be the heir of Abraham Lincoln and his concern for freedom and equality before the law for all." His words were enthusiastically received. It is clear that Charlie Baker cares deeply that Lincoln's message is a message for our times.

It is fitting for Massachusetts to join in the celebration because the heart and soul of the abolitionist movement was in Boston. Massachusetts was the second state (right after Vermont) to outlaw slavery in 1783.

The leading publication of the movement was The Liberator, begun in Boston by William Lloyd Garrison in 1831 and continued right through the Civil War. When the Republican Party was formed on an anti-slavery platform in 1854, abolitionists en masse became Republicans and swept Lincoln to victory in 1860.

The anthem of the anti-slavery cause in the Civil War, The Battle Hymn of the Republic, was a poem penned by a Boston abolitionist Julia Ward Howe.

The Republican Governor of Massachusetts John Andrew was such a fervent and active supporter of freedom for slaves that a hospital at what was an all-black college in Tuskegee, Alabama is named after him.

During the war it was the Republican abolitionists with Massachusetts in the forefront who kept putting pressure on President Lincoln to unilaterally "do something" to free the slaves. Trouble was, for Lincoln, a President sworn to uphold the Constitution and a lawyer as well, slavery was legal under the Constitution in states which allowed it. And the Supreme Court had ruled that Congress could not restrict slavery in the new territories of the Louisiana Purchase. What could he do?

Beset daily with demands from his most loyal and demanding supporters, he searched for an answer and, as the inventive lawyer he was, he found it in that troublesome document the Constitution itself.

Preserving the Union was the President's paramount duty under the Constitution and he was waging a war to do just that. Just perhaps, under his War Powers as Commander in Chief, he could indeed "do something."

Lincoln delivered an ultimatum to the rebel states: Return to the Union by January 1, 1863 or he would free all the slaves in rebel territories and order the Union Army to protect them. His war aims were two-fold: To encourage slaves to flee the plantations, thus weakening the agricultural output of the South, the source of almost all of its external revenue and, hopefully, to get freed slaves to sign up for Union Army. He achieved both purposes -- and his Emancipation Proclamation was never legally challenged.

Until 1963 the South was winning most of the battles. By mid-summer, the effects of the Emancipation Proclamation were beginning to be felt. On the first three days of July, the bloody battle of Gettysburg was fought and the Union forces were victorious, forcing Lee to quit the battlefield and retreat.

Cheering crowds stormed the White House on July 4th wanting to hear from the President, but we waved them off. It wasn't yet time to say what he sensed had occurred: The war had turned in the Union's favor and the Union would be preserved. And something just as great if not greater was being accomplished.

The citizens of Gettysburg decided on a Soldiers' Cemetery and that a solemn dedication was called for. The date set was November 19, 1863. Edward Everett, himself a Massachusetts abolitionist, probably the most distinguished man of his times, was chosen to deliver what would be a two-hour oration. The invitation to Lincoln was a courtesy by the committee, which politely indicated he could make "a few remarks" after the principal talk. Lincoln told his aides before leaving Washington that was fine, he would be "short, short, short."

After what would have been Edward Everett's oration, Abraham Lincoln, in his long black coat with white flecks in his beard, walked through the crowd at Wequassett, took his place at the front and began, "Four score and seven years ago,...

"Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Scott Hamilton." The crowd rose with enthusiastic applause in appreciation of this stirring rendition.

President Lincoln had put things in context. Acceptance in the Constitution of slavery as life as it had been in America since the early 1600s was a betrayal of the Declaration of Independence. Now the promise that all men are entitled to the enjoyment of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" had been made fact by the brave men who had fought and died. There had been A NEW BIRTH OF FREEDOM.

There was still "unfinished business" for "us the living." It is to ensure that "government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

Lincoln spoke not only to the people of his times, but to all those generations to come in America who would be threatened by the loss of freedom. Lincoln had warned that if America were to suffer decline, be defeated, it would be from within. Every generation had to be on guard, every generation had to fight for a new birth of freedom to ensure the perpetual continuation of a government controlled by the people, not by those who from time to time would be in power.

President Reagan had his own warning, that freedom can be lost in a single generation.

When we see the overreaching in Democrat-controlled Washington eroding our freedoms, limiting our choices,refusing to enforce the laws of the land, intruding into our private lives, taxing and regulating the productive and denigrating the accomplishments of the successful, we must take heed of Lincoln's message and gird ourselves for the elections ahead. It isn't just the White House, it is every Democrat who supported its policies, voted for them and did not protest the constant lying to the American people about how they had been deceived.

And the one-party tyranny in the State House is spending our taxpayer money on government handouts to those who aren't entitled to them, imposing taxes and more taxes, even automatic taxes on gas, and more and more regulation, it is time for change there, too. Contrast the Weld to Romney years of balanced budgets without tax increases and low unemployment and strong job growth in a business-friendly economy with the past seven years.

President Lincoln's spirit will be with us as we fight to reclaim the freedoms which are being stolen from all Americans by those in power who are telling us how to live our lives.

2014 is the time the people must fight to win back our freedoms. We must bring about a new birth of freedom. It is Republicans who must lead the charge as they did to free the slaves of 150 years ago.

Fran Meaney, Chairman, Chatham RTC



On this Thanksgiving Day let us be thankful for those who would open the eyes of those who are blind to how the government is stealing from us the rights guaranteed to us by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Ask yourself these questions which Judge Napolitano poses and you will understand how important the 2014 elections will be. And, if we are not the ones called to fight for freedom, who?

The Grinch who stole Thanksgiving

By Andrew P. Napolitano Wednesday, November 27, 2013

What if another Thanksgiving Day is upon us and owing to the government, we have less to be thankful for than we did at the last one? What if at every Thanksgiving, liberty is weakened and the government is strengthened? What if Thanksgiving’s warm and breezy seduction of gratitude is just the government’s way of inducing us to think we should be grateful for it?

What if we don’t owe the government any thanks for anything? What if the government owes us back all the freedom and property it has stolen from us? What if the government has produced nothing and owns nothing, save what it has coerced us to give it? What if the courts have ruled that the government can lie and cheat with impunity in order to acquire our property or assault our freedoms?

What if the government lies and cheats regularly to enhance its own wealth and power? What if the government claims that its power comes from the consent of the governed? What if no one consented to the government’s spying and lying except those who personally and directly benefit from it?

What if the government is afraid to tell us all it is doing to us, for fear we might vote it out of office? What if that vote would change nothing? What if the spying and lying continued no matter who ran the government? What if those who spy and lie don’t lose their jobs no matter how they lie, upon whom they spy or who gets elected?

What if this holiday of turkey and football and family is the modern-day version of bread and circuses? What if bread and circuses — which Roman emperors gave to the mobs to keep them sated — are just the government’s way today of keeping us sated at the end of every November? What if the government expects us to give thanks to it for letting us have Thanksgiving Day and Black Friday off?

What if the president thinks he's a king? What if he claims the power to kill people outside the Constitution? What if some of these people were your sisters, neighbors or friends? What if he thinks he's so smart that he knows what choices we should make? What if he makes those choices for us?

What if we each have the natural right to choose how to care for our own bodies, but he has used the coercive powers of the law to tell us how to do so? What if that law compelled all persons to pay for more health insurance than they needed, wanted or could afford? What if the president deceived dupes in Congress into voting for that law? What if the president deceived millions of Americans into supporting that law? What if the president forced you to pay for a health insurance policy that funded killing babies in their mothers' wombs?

What if the president knows what you want and need because his spies have captured your every telephone call, text and email? What if the Declaration of Independence says that our rights are personal, inalienable and come from God? What if the Constitution says that among our inalienable rights are the right to be left alone and the right to be different?

What if the president took an oath to uphold the Declaration and the Constitution but believes in neither? What if he believes that our rights come from the collective consent of our neighbors, whom he can influence or, worse yet, from the government, which he can control? What if he believes that he can invade our right to be left alone by spying on us and lying to us, and destroy our right to be different by killing us? What if he actually did all these things?

What if only individuals foolish enough to do so give up their own rights but cannot give up the rights of those of us who refuse to surrender them? What if the government can only constitutionally take away personal freedoms when a jury has convicted someone of a crime? What if the government thinks it can take away our rights by ordinary legislation or by presidential fiat? What if it has done so?

What if someone who once worked for the government knew all this and risked life and limb to tell us about it? What if the government at first denied that it lies to and spies upon all Americans? What if it demonized the whistleblower? What if it chased him to the ends of the Earth because he revealed awful truths? What if everything Edward Snowden revealed about the government turned out to be true?

What if it is the personal courage and constitutional fidelity of Mr. Snowden for which we should be thankful? What if the government hates and fears our freedoms just as it hates and fears the revelation of the awful truths Mr. Snowden possesses?

What if our thanks are a result primarily of the Author of our freedoms, who made us in His image and likeness, and to those who have exercised those freedoms to seek and reveal the truth? What if it is the truth, and not the government, that will keep us free?

What if we have the right to pursue happiness, no matter what the government says? What if we have the right to be unique, no matter what the government wants? What if the freedom to seek the truth will bring us happiness?

What if that freedom, which is still ours, is a just cause for a happy Thanksgiving, after all?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution.



Eludes corrective legislation

Special to the New York Sun
November 2, 2013

May I ask this question? Why is it that Americans don’t have the freedom to choose their own health insurance? I just don’t get it. Why must the liberal nanny state make decisions for us? We can make them ourselves, thank you very much. It’s like choosing a car, buying a home, or investing in a stock. We can handle it.

So why must the government tell me and everyone else what we can and cannot buy?

Charles Krauthammer and the Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger noted in excellent recent columns that this whole Obamacare business represents the greatest-ever expansion of the liberal entitlement-state dream. But I don’t want that dream. And you shouldn’t either.

Here’s what else I don’t want: As a 60-something, relatively healthy person, I don’t want lactation and maternity services, abortion services, speech therapy, mammograms, fertility treatments, or Viagra. I don’t want it. So why should I have to tear up my existing health-care plan, and then buy a plan with far more expensive premiums and deductibilities and with services I don’t need or want?

Why? Because Team Obama says I have to. And that’s not much of a reason. It’s not freedom.

Fortunately, NBC News pulled the plug this past week on President Obama’s promise that “if you like your own plan, you can keep it.” Ditto for keeping your own doctor. The plug was pulled because NBC learned that Team Obama knew — for three years — that stiff new regulations would prevent the grandfathering of existing health-care plans. And not just a few plans. But plans that could affect as many as 15 million individuals.

The day after that bombshell hit, the president tried to blame insurance companies — rather than regulatory overkill — for this Obamacare shortfall. Yet both the public and the mainstream media were having none of it. In what may turn out to be a landmark moment, Americans and the media at large have turned against the president and Obamacare.

Incidentally, equally punitive regulations will hit more than 90 million employer-sponsored health plans next year. It’s the same problem as the individual plan. Grandfathering won’t work. Moreover, replacing these plans with much more expensive substitutes is going to constitute a major tax hike on the entire economy. This point shouldn’t be lost as Americans worry about being kicked from their plans. Not only is Obamacare anti-freedom, it’s anti-growth as well.

As for the grandfathering lie, President Obama’s HHS staffers were the saboteurs. They undoubtedly acted with full knowledge of what they were doing, and thus trapped the president in three years of falsehoods that were essential to selling Obamacare.

I just love it when they tell me that so many of these existing plans are substandard “bad apples.” Do the president and his people not know that insurance at the state level is one of the most regulated areas of the economy? They’re blaming insurance companies, not their own new regulations. The stupidity of that his hilarious. Do they really think salesmen are out selling these policies off the back of trucks?

No, this is federal coercion at its worst. And that’s why the public is turning against it. It’s not freedom.

There are other structural problems to Obamacare that are both unfair and unaffordable. Mainly, younger healthy persons are not going to subsidize older sicker persons. We should take care of the latter with transparent government subsidies, and not by trying to redistribute resources (again) from the young to the old.

Or then there’s the Medicaid entitlement. It’s already out of control and close to bankruptcy. But in the early days of Obamacare, Medicaid sign-ups are exploding, all while sign-ups for private plans on the new exchanges are miniscule.

Between the president’s broken promises, the millions of policy cancellations, the continued website breakdowns, and the unaffordable, unfair con game between the healthy young and the sicker old, this Obamacare monster is well on its way to collapsing of its own weight. But here’s the bigger point: All this is the inevitable result of massive central-planning exercises to control the economy. That’s not freedom.

No amount of rescue legislation is going to change this. It’s the elections of 2014 and 2016 that will allow the American people to reject this Soviet-style planning. But I’ll reference my conservative colleagues in the media once again: Obamacare represents the greatest-ever expansion of the liberal entitlement-state dream. And you know what? That dream is crumbling and dissolving before our very eyes.

And that is freedom.



Obama grew up in a Marxist-saturated life - his mother, his grandparents, his high school "mentor," then hanging out with Marxist types at Occidental and Columbia. Then he went to work as a Marxist community organizer in Chicago, studying and implementing communist Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals. His decision to go to Harvard Law School was to learn how to gain political power to become a more effective community organizer.

And so he became Community Organizer in Chief in the White House and the rules he plays by are the same. Do as I say. No compromise. I won. You lost.

And so the people that foolishly elected him twice are being forced into a monstrosity of a health plan that they do not want. Why is Obama doing this? Because he can. Whatever balance as a human being he presumably had appears to have been buried far beneath his community organizer ideology.

Community Organizer Runs Amok
By JANICE SHAW CROUSE on 10.9.13 @ 6:08AM
American Spectator

The shutdown reveals our president at his most unbalanced.

From its earliest days, the Obama Administration has operated from a “community organizer” worldview, characterized by an “us” against “them” perspective. The President has repeatedly and in a variety of circumstances said, “Elections have consequences, and I won” as an excuse for yet another executive order, non-Constitutional decision, or “in-your-face” arrogant action. The President goes through the motions of listening to others: he claims to be bipartisan; he hosts White House confabs and talks about the need for compromise, but he always ends up saying, “I won,” and ends any pretense of discussion or negotiation. He explains that, as President, he shouldn’t have to “bring something to the table” and declares that he will not negotiate, as though that his beneath his dignity as President. He goes to play golf and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s snide remarks become the Democrat voice.

Obviously, the President did win the election; he won the presidency. But, as noted by James Joyner in Outside the Beltway: the President is not a king or a prime minister. Granted, he is the most powerful person in America and, indeed, in the world (though, sadly and increasingly, less so), but he does not control the other two branches of government. They have the responsibility to balance his power for the good of the people. The Legislative and Judicial branches of government are independent entities.

And, as clarified brilliantly and effectively by Thomas Sowell, the House of Representatives has the right –– indeed, the authority and responsibility –– to grant or withhold money: they voted “all the money required to keep all government activities going except for Obamacare.” The decision of the House of Representatives determines independently where money is to be spent. It is called “legislation by appropriation.”

Thus, the House deemed, as representatives of the people, that Obamacare was not ready for implementation nor was the timing right given the high levels of unemployment and the national debt and deficit figures creating a financial crisis.

Let me repeat: The House authorized funds to operate the government except for ObamaCare; the Senate refused to accept the money for operating the government unless funds were also appropriated for Obamacare. As Sowell notes, “That is their right. But that is also their responsibility.”

In other words, the Senate chose to shut down the government rather than delay funding for Obamacare. And, even if the Senate had voted the same as the House, the President said he would veto that vote. The bottom line is that neither the Senate nor the President would accept the appropriations authority of the House.

Thus, the Senate and the President bear sole and complete responsibility for the government shutdown. If they had been willing to accept the constitutionally determined role of the House of Representatives, there would have been negotiations on the controversial issues while government operated as usual. A reporter who worked for two decades as a New York Times reporter described the Obama Administration as the “most closed, control-freak administration I’ve ever covered.”

All the political posturing of the Obama Administration and Senate leadership –– including unprecedented vindictive actions, name-calling, pettiness and juvenile behavior –– comes straight out of a “community organizer” playbook, not from constitutional government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Community organizers ensure that the consequences for opposing them are “as painful as possible.” By now, everyone is familiar with all the unprecedented “trivial and petty” measures taken by the Obama Administration to ensure that the public is as inconvenienced as possible. Park Rangers were told to “make life as difficult for people” as they could. They were forced to close down national parks –– even those that are outdoors and normally not guarded and have no entrance or exit; instead, the monuments or areas were barricaded with metal fences wired together. The National Mall and other historic areas were turned visually into police crime scenes with police tape draped over barriers and police cars blocking entrances to parking lots and driveways with red and blue lights glaring.

Community organizers demonize opponents. Wes Pruden, veteran columnist for the Washington Times, described Sen. Harry Reid as “weary from exhausting his thesaurus for synonyms for ‘arsonist’ and ‘terrorist’ and ‘pillager’” –– just a few of the derogatory terms he used to refer to the Republicans and anyone whose views differ from the Democrats intent on forcing Obamacare against the public will. Mr. Pruden compared the shutdown politics to grade-school one-up-manship with the point being “to see who can squeeze hardest, make the most pious speech and listen for the applause.”

Community organizers always proceed forward within the ideological framework (worldview) that pits “us” against “them.” A tour guide at Yellowstone National Park was leading a group of tourist at the park when the shutdown went into force. The tourists complained about the “Gestapo tactics” that confined the group to their hotel and would not even let them take pictures of the scenery. Catholic priests in the military were threatened with arrest if they conducted mass. A jogger at the Valley Forge National Historic Park was fined $100 for “trespassing” on public property. Campers, bikers, and hikers were issued fines at Acadia National Park.

Community organizers believe that the ends justify the means and that there are winners and losers with the winners taking all the “marbles” and the losers trod under foot. A senior administration official told the Washington Examiner, “We are winning; it doesn’t really matter to us how long the shutdown lasts.” The President has just upped the ante by reiterating that “he won’t negotiate on a government-funding bill or debt-limit increase.” The White House is eliciting what they called “sob-stories” from the public about how the shutdown is hurting them with plans to use those emotional tidbits to sway public opinion their way; after all, anything goes when you are the winner and everyone else is the loser.

Clearly, for this administration: It’s my way or the highway. Amber Alerts have been shut down; Leader Reid doesn’t worry about children dying from cancer, and the dog therapy program that brings dogs to visit terminally ill children has been suspended. Then, in the lowest blow of all, news comes that families of military personnel killed in Afghanistan during the shutdown will not receive funeral benefits –– typically around $100,000 to cover airfare to D.C. for the arrival of the body and other costs associated with the loss of a loved one. There appears to be no low to which this Administration will not stoop to show who “won.” For the community organizer, winning is all that counts.



If you want to read all in one place the most sickening things Obama deliberately has done and is doing to damage America and stick it to white Americans (as he was taught to do by Reverend "God Damn America" Wright), this piece by Victor Davis Hanson is it.

Read it and weep, but get ready to give your all to a Republican victory in 2014.

Obama: Transforming America
National Review Online
October 21, 2013
By Victor Davis Hanson

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” — Barack Obama, October 30, 2008

“We are going to have to change our conversation; we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history; we’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation.” — Michelle Obama, May 14, 2008

There certainly is no question that Barack Obama wants to change the United States. And there clearly is no doubt that such fundamental transformation is difficult, given our tripartite system of government — even though Obama entered office with large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, an enthralled media, and a closely divided Supreme Court.

So to what degree, after nearly five years in office, has Obama succeeded in changing the United States?

Federal spending. We are $6 trillion more deeply in debt. And there are record numbers of Americans on food stamps, unemployment insurance, and disability insurance, or simply disengaged from the work force. Obama has also fundamentally changed Americans’ ideas about the redistributive state.

Whereas, under Clinton and Bush, the argument centered on whether federal subsidies eroded the work ethic, created dependency, and led to a permanent underclass, now the discussion is quite transformed beyond the safety net. Fairly or not, Obama is seen as expanding entitlements in part as a political tool, quite apart from the question of their efficacy in eliminating poverty.

The problem is not just that his critics accuse Obama of trying to create a permanent constituency, a loyal “47 percent” dependent on state money, but rather the way in which Obama himself envisions these programs as reminders of his them/us faultlines. After 2009, the regulations governing food stamps and welfare were liberalized and politicized as never before. These payouts were judged not just on whether they hurt or helped people, but also, in the Greek and Roman sense, of increasing the number of recipients so as to change political realities.

Taxes and debt. Democrats usually wish to raise them, Republicans to shrink them. Nothing new there. But under Obama, there is now a twist. Higher taxes are not a means to achieve a balanced budget, as under the Clinton-Gingrich deal of 1997. Indeed, the return of a 39 percent–plus federal income-tax rate on higher incomes will result not in a balanced budget as before (even with congressionally imposed sequestration). We will still have huge annual deficits of two-thirds of a trillion dollars or more.

Because nearly half of Americans will continue to pay no federal income taxes, and the old Clinton rates were imposed only on the upper brackets, we have the worst of both worlds: high taxes on job creators, along with continuing huge deficits. That paradox raises the question of whether Obama sees deficits not just as necessary to prime the economy, or as a tolerable consequence of huge increases in federal spending, but also as a mechanism to serially raise taxes on the upper brackets, as a desirable redistributive end in and of itself. Taxes are seen now not just as a way to fund expenditures, but as a punitive tool — hence the new phraseology of 1 percent, fat cats, corporate-jet owners, you did not build that, no time to profit, at some point you’ve made enough money, etc. A more equal but poorer America appears to be preferable to a more affluent but less equal nation.




Daniel Henniger, columnist for the Wall Street Journal, details Obama's increasing disregard of the limits of the Constitution and of laws passed by Congress. He says people are helpless to stop his unlawful aggregation of powers. The implication of his focus on Obama is that once he is gone the problem will be gone.

No way. I posted this comment on the WSJ board:

It's a mistake to focus all the blame on Obama when it is the entire Democratic operation that gave us Obamacare and years of uncontrolled spending by refusing to pass a budget. It is the Democratic Senate that makes impeachment of Obama for his lawlessness impossible.

Even Obama knows he needs Democrats in control of everything for him to finish destroying the free enterprise economy and locking in a majority of government dependents who will keep Democrats in power for decades (Lyndon Johnson's aim for the Great Society dependency programs was to lock in the "black" vote for centuries).

The Democratic Party has been subverting the Constitution and American values for years (decades, back to President Wilson) before Obama arrived. He's just the best front man for their destructive policies they have ever had because the press gives him a pass on everything because he's black. No, this is not a one man show.

That's why the 2014 elections are so important. To defeat Obama's goals of creating a subservient America, a New Slavery of government dependents, which are the Democratic Party's goals, and save the America our founders gave us, every effort must be made to defeat every Democrat running for national, state and local office.


Contact: Diane Bronsdon 508 945 9218
C R Facebook
To help us do our part to keep America strong and well informed, just click below. Donate Now!


Michael O'Keffe District Attorney
Leo Cakounes Barn.Cty Commish
Sheriff Cummings
Hot Air
Legal Insurrection
National Review
Power Line
Pajamas Media


Semper Fi Fund
Cape Cod Cares for Our Troops
Wounded Warrior Family Support
New England Center and Home for Veterans
Chatham Info
Monthly Archive

Category Yearly Archives