One More Reason You Should Care Who Wins VA’s Governor’s Race – VA Is About to Become a Gay Marriage Battleground State!
Sep30

One More Reason You Should Care Who Wins VA’s Governor’s Race – VA Is About to Become a Gay Marriage Battleground State!

cuccinelli mcauliffeGOVERNOR’S ELECTION STATISTICAL UPDATE

Virginia’s governor’s race is really heating up and the Conservative VA Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, is trailing Hillary Clinton’s former campaign manager, Terry McAuliffe, by an uncomfortably wide margin, reports U.S. News and World Report.

The Washington Post poll cited by U.S. News reveals that Ken isn’t just fighting Terry.  He’s also having to combat a Libertarian opponent named Robert Sarvis who’s garnering a whopping 10 per cent of likely voters that would normally be casting Republican ballots.

According to The Post’s poll, the current percentages seem to be 47 percent for Terry, 39 percent for Ken and 10 percent for Sarvis. 

Without Sarvis in the picture, Ken and Terry would be in a statistical dead heat.

WHY THIS ELECTION MATTERS FOR TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE

You know that Terry McAuliffe is an avid supporter of gay marriage.

What you may not know is that the Libertarian, Robert Sarvis, is also a proponent of gay marriage too.  Here’s his ad telling you that he wants gay marriage to be legal in VA:

Ken Cuccinelli the only man in the race who opposes gay marriage.

U.S. SUPREME COURT SUMMER DECISIONS PUT VA ON THE FOREFRONT OF GAY MARRIAGE BATTLE

Hollingsworth vs. Perry did not define marriage as federally protected civil right between same sex couples.

However, the justices did decide they wouldn’t consider hearing any federal marriage appeal not supported by the state’s Governor, Lt. Gov., and Attorney General, who are in charge of enforcing (or not enforcing) state marriage laws.

The U.S. vs. Windsor case made individual states responsible for their own legal definition of marriage and bared the federal government from exclusively, legally defending the traditional definition of marriage.

When taken together, these two decisions make who wins and who loses gubernatorial races even more important than they always have been.

REAL NORFOLK, VA COURTROOM DRAMA IS MAKING VA THE NATIONAL GAY MARRIAGE TEST CASE

The former senior “hanging chad” lawyers for George W. Bush and Al Gore’s 2000 Supreme Court battle are working together to overturn VA’s pro-traditional marriage laws, reports The Washington Post.

Republican, Theodore Olson and Democrat, David Boies both believe that VA’s definition of marriage as a sacred institution between one man and one woman is, “draconian.”

Today, Olson and Boies have announced that they will represent two homosexual couples in Norfolk, VA, who want to end VA’s ban on gay marriage.

Gay men, Timothy Bostic and Tony London, want their “union” recognized by VA.

Lesbians, Carol Schall and Mary Townley were married in CA.  They say they have a 15 year-old daughter who deserves to have her parents’ CA “marriage” just as legal in VA.

This year’s governor’s election and beginning of these legal proceedings have combined to make the perfect political storm. 

Whoever wins the governor’s mansion just weeks from now will help determine if VA maintains its Conservative position on marriage or becomes one more example of state sanctioned moral relativism.

 

 

 

 

Read More
EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Mark Levin Endorses Ken Cuccinelli for Governor of Virginia (On Constitution Day)
Sep18

EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Mark Levin Endorses Ken Cuccinelli for Governor of Virginia (On Constitution Day)

LibertyNEWS.com’s Norvell Rose traveled to a special event in Virginia where Mark Levin showed up to personally endorse Ken Cuccinelli for Governor. The endorsement took place on Constitution Day.

The Virginia Governor race will be the biggest race in the nation this November and LibertyNEWS.com will be here to cover the campaigns beginning in October.

Read More
Why the VA Governor’s Race Should Matter to You
Sep18

Why the VA Governor’s Race Should Matter to You

It’s very tempting to ignore any state’s governor’s race if it’s an election in which you can’t vote, and where the issues being debated don’t directly affect your life in any immediately noticeable way.

Break the mold today.  Take a few minutes to learn why you should care about who goes home a winner and who gets sent home a loser in Virginia’s gubernatorial contest this November.

Virginia and South Carolina are two governor’s races Conservatives can actually win this Fall, so Liberty will be keeping an eye on those races and periodically giving you the inside scoop on these elections from now until November.

WHAT’S SO IMPORTANT ABOUT VIRGINIA ANYWAY?

VA is an important political symbol.  The Commonwealth of VA was settled as the first permanent English settlement in the New World.  The state went on to give America eight presidents – including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

VA is home to no fewer than two dozen major military installations, including The Pentagon, Earth’s largest naval base – Naval Station Norfolk, and Air Combat Command HQ – Langley Air Force Base.

VA also holds 13 electoral votes, which until recently, traditionally were earned by Conservative presidential candidates.  Barack Hussein Obama changed VA’s electoral history seemingly overnight in 2008 and again in 2012.

Obama won VA by 150,000 votes, claiming all 13 electoral votes and transforming the once powerful Conservative Stronghold into a swing state. 

In-fact, Obama’s VA victories alarmed so many Conservatives in VA that State Senator Charles “Bill” Carrico sponsored SB 723 which, had it not failed in Jan. 2013, would have reapportioned VA’s electoral votes from “winner take all” to regional apportionment.

Had the bill been introduced and become law before Obama’s 2012 victory, The President would have only taken 4 electoral votes from VA and Mitt Romney would have taken 9, reports The Virginian Pilot.

In short, the winner of November’s VA gubernatorial election gets to help shape the economic future of a swing state with a huge military population that can determine who becomes President 2016.

WHO’S RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR?

Ken Cuccinelli is VA’s current Attorney General.  He’s also a strong Roman Catholic Conservative.

Ken is facing a strong challenge from the fundraising genius behind Hillary Clinton’s rise to successful Liberal political stardomTerry McAuliffe.

Later updates will give you more information on both men and their quest to occupy VA’s historic governor’s mansion.  However, today’s initial report should give you enough information to get you interested in the hottest governor’s race in the country.

WHO IS KEN CUCCINELLI?

Ken is a Compassionate Conservative Roman Catholic who has served in VA’s legislative branch as a state senator.   He held office in the judiciary as the VA attorney general.  Now, he wants to complete the trifecta becoming the state’s chief executive.

Democrat attack ads portray Ken as a hardline Conservative whose 100 per cent pro-life voting and advocacy record comes from a place of hate rather than genuine religious conviction and honest difference of opinion with Liberals.

The facts, however, show you the real Ken.

Ken helped start the University of VA ‘s Sexual Assault Facts and Education (SAFE) Program to help victims of sexual assault on campus after he heard a woman get brutally attacked one evening when he was a student at the Charlottesville school, reports The Washington Post.

Here’s a campaign ad that shows you the real heart of this Conservative titan.

Ken is 100 per cent pro-life.  He supports traditional marriage, low taxes, a strong national defense, and strict constructionist approach To the U.S. Constitution.

The Attorney General opposes Obamacare and has promised to help Virginians resist Obama’s overreaching healthcare mandates as long as possible.

WHO IS TERRY MCAULIFFE?

Terry has been a longtime friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton.  He supports abortion on demand, a weak national defense, 100 per cent loyalty to the agenda of Barack Hussein Obama, and shipping American jobs to China.

Since the U.S Supreme Court decided that gay marriage is a state issue in Hollingsworth vs. Perry, VA Conservatives will need a governor who can veto any effort to legalize same-sex marriage.

Terry has promised to do the exact opposite – if elected, Terry will push VA toward legalizing homosexual marriages that will then, in-turn, be recognized by the federal government as lawful, moral, and binding.

Everything you really need to know about Terry McAuliffe’s economic policy can be found by watching this 30 minute video from Citizens United.

The next installment of Liberty Intel will, in-part, flush out the contents of this video in terms Terry’s untrustworthiness and lack of character.

Terry McAuliffe promised to open two businesses in VA and hire thousands of people to help them provide for their family.  He not only failed to accomplish any of his economic goals, but proceeded to lie about his success to anyone who could hear him talk.

Read More
Baucus Retires; What’s Next for Montana?
Aug27

Baucus Retires; What’s Next for Montana?

Credit - Opednews.com

Credit – Opednews.com

Montana’s Democratic giant, Senator Max Baucus, has announced that this election will be his last.  He has decided to retire.

So what happened to Max here?  Why would a seasoned senator and powerful committee chairman throw in the towel after thirty-five years of service?  The last time he ran, this thirty-five year U.S. Senate veteran had no primary challenger.  Baucus won his last election with an epic 73% margin of victory in an era where “too close to call” seems to be the favorite media mantra.  This chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is currently sitting on a campaign war chest of $3,594,924 cash-on-hand.

Yet, all the cash-on-hand in the entire state of Montana and all the seniority on Capitol Hill could not obscure the data from the latest February 2013 Public Policy Poll, which showed Baucus trailing his most likely Republican opponent, Congressman Steve Daines, of Montana’s 3rd Congressional District.  The latest poll gives the congressman a five point lead in a head to head race against the incumbent senator.  In short, if the race were today, Baucus would only garner 44% of the electorate’s votes, while Daines would command a very respectable 49%.

Some pundits say Baucus’ retirement announcement is just smart politics.  Max Baucus is a career politician who has been around Washington D.C. long enough to know how to read the writing on the marble.  Max knows when his it’s time to go home…and stay there.

Though Congressman Daines is the strongest challenger to Senator Baucus (if he were not retiring), he is by no means the only contender.  Republican Montana State Representative Champ Edmonds and Republican State Senator, Corey Stapleton, both from Montana’s 1st District, have tossed their proverbial hat in the equally proverbial ring.  The state’s Attorney General, Tim Fox, has also declared himself as a reasonable replacement for Baucus as well.

The same February poll which showed Daines leading Baucus 49%-44% if the race were to be held then, also showed that Baucus would defeat Edmunds as a challenger 47%-37%, Baucus defeating Fox 46%-43%, and Baucus defeating Stapleton 45%-38%.

So, what’s next for Montana and the coveted seat of outgoing veteran Max Baucus?  During the 2008 Presidential election, Senator John McCain barely defeated then Senator Obama with less than 3% of the total votes cast – 242,000 to 231,000.  Gov. Romney carried the state in his 2012 contest with President Obama with a much more respectable lead – 55.4% to 41.7%.

The 2012 presidential election results reveal the fact that the majority of voting Montana residents have turned against the liberal agenda of Barrack Hussein Obama by enough of a margin to defeat even a relative centrist like Baucus.  This key co-author of Obamacare knows that the majority of the electorate in his state sees the legislation as a “train-wreck.”  The 2012 election results in Montana also show that the majority of the voting population of that state have a rapidly diminishing respect for the incumbent president and everyone who rides his coattails.

Thus, Max is packing his bags and heading home, this time for good.

What remains to be seen is what democrats will be brave enough to step out on to the primary field to pick up the banner Baucus is cheerfully leaving on the pavement of this new battleground state.

It will be interesting to see if Congressman Daines shapes up to become the Republican nominee to face off against a would-be Democrat opponent despite his only recent election to Congress from his former seat in the Montana state-house.

One thing is for sure; Montana will be one more state to watch in what is sure to be one nail-biting Fall.

Read More
Meet Colonel Martha McSally, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
Aug27

Meet Colonel Martha McSally, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)

Former Republican Congressional hopeful, Martha McSally, who had been highly decorated for her audacity and tenacity in aerial combat, was barely defeated on the ground by her Democrat opponent, Ron Barber, back in November of 2012.  That Arizona 2nd Congressional District election was one of the closest contests since Bush v. Gore in 2000.

McSally’s Democrat opponent eked out a narrow win with a miniscule .8%. margin of victory.

The Col. was running against Barber to fill the Arizona 2nd Congressional District (formerly 8th District) seat vacated by Gabrielle Giffords, who had resigned from office after having been shot by an angry voter.  Barber’s campaign carried the day with 50.4% of the vote.  Col. McSally (Ret.) trailed her opponent by .8%, having garnered 49.6% of all votes cast.

Don’t think for a moment that the Colonel just took her defeat lightly, dried her tears, and walked away.

No.

Martha McSally is still inspiring young voters from Arizona to Rhode Island, telling them her story of military daring in the sky and on the ground.  She is also still very active in pushing for Conservative advocacy of women’s rights from Phoenix to Kandahar.

She shared her military memories with guests at a Rhode Island GOP Reagan Dinner recently and the video of a question and answer session was posted to YouTube just three days ago.

In the video, after she responded to some young voters’ questions; McSally announced that she has, by no means, ruled out another run for the House or even Arizona’s governorship.  She says she is even considering running for the U.S. Senate – thinking of replacing John McCain when he decides to retire.  You can get acquainted with her a little more by watching the video.

Just to jog your memory, since you will be hearing from the Colonel again in the very near future, here is a quick biographical sketch of the warrior who will not let one small electoral loss deter her from serving the nation she loves as a civilian that she served as an air force pilot from 1988-2010.

Cadet McSally graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1988.  She went on to earn a M.A. in Government from Harvard.  She became a pilot and flew the A-10 Thunderbolt also known as a warthog.  The A-10 is basically a tank with wings built to kill tanks on the ground and give combat troops air cover in the middle of a firefight.

In 1993, while she was an air force captain, she became one of only a dozen ladies who became the first women to fly their aircraft into combat following a forty-five year ban on females in air-combat.

During 2000-2002, while she was a Major stationed in Saudi Arabia, McSally, represented by The Rutherford Institute, sued the Department of Defense while on active duty.

Her lawsuit demanded that Secretary Rumsfeld lobby Congress to change the regulations which ordered American servicewomen deployed to Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia, to abide by Shar’ia law – including wearing the abaya and other Muslim attire.  In 2002, Congress acquiesced to her plea and voted 93-0 to suspend the regulation.  Her military legacy is that female American citizens deployed in Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia, no longer have to dress in restrictive Muslim garb.

McSally flew combat missions after her successful lawsuit too.  McSally was promoted to Lt. Col. and flew her A-10 during Operation Enduring Freedom in the skies over Afghanistan.  In 2010, she retired as a Colonel, after sharing her experience, tenacity, and wisdom with fellow officers at the Air War College.

Currently, she is helping Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel decide how to expand the role of women in combat.  She has also been telling Congress about her opinion on ethics, human rights, and drone strikes when she testified before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee just four days ago.

Watch out for Martha McSally in the coming days, weeks, and months ahead.  This retired Warthog pilot is anything but down for the count.

Read More
What Happened to Colorado? And Can It Happen To Your State Too? (Hint: YES)
Aug27

What Happened to Colorado? And Can It Happen To Your State Too? (Hint: YES)

shock

You may not live in Colorado, but what I’m going to write here should shake you to your core. If you live in Colorado, let this be a very clear depiction of what is happening, and why it’s happening. But before we get to that, let’s look at recent history in Colorado. Specifically as it relates to conservatism  and more specifically as it relates to the 2nd Amendment.

One part of the Colorado attack on the 2nd Amendment that Americans are finding so puzzling is the pre-conceived notion that Colorado was part of the “wild west,” even in modern times. As a former Nevadan (I lived in Nevada for 15 years) I relate to the vibe we have come to know and relate to in terms of states like Montana, Colorado, Utah, Arizona and Nevada. These states have, in recent times, held an independent spirit. “Leave us alone and we won’t bother each other” has always been the mindset.

In fact, even now Colorado’s gun laws (for the time being) are more friendly to the 2nd Amendment than my own state of Virginia (until the new laws take hold). See Colorado’s existing laws vs Virginia’s existing laws, for example.

This makes sense because traditionally speaking, Colorado has been governed fairly conservatively through the end of the 20th century. Like Virginia (and many, many other “conservative” states) Colorado residents previously probably didn’t think they would ever see the day when a big government, regulation hungry legislature would come after their guns. Indeed, Colorado’s state legislature was traditionally dominated by conservative Republicans and Democrats. Or, at the very least, Republicans and Democrats who had no intention of creating barriers to the 2nd Amendment.

But as the 21st century began, something happened. Everything changed. What was it? How did Colorado begin a slippery slope towards more spending, higher taxes, more unemployment, more government regulation, more gun control and less liberty?

The answer to this question was revealed back in 2008. Unfortunately, most who support the ideas of liberty didn’t read the signs and the infrastructure that would aim Colorado towards a land of few to no rights took control. Fred Barnes documented this monster as it was born. He called it “The Colorado Model.”

You really need to take the time to read the entire column. Go ahead and click here to read The Colorado Model. We’ll look at chunks of the column below. Let’s start with confirmation of everything I’ve already said. Now remember, this was written in 2008.

The Democratic surge in Colorado reflects the national trend, but it involves a great deal more. There’s something unique going on in Colorado that, if copied in other states, has the potential to produce sweeping Democratic gains nationwide. That something is the “Colorado Model,” and it’s certain to be a major topic of discussion when Democrats convene in Denver in the last week of August for their national convention.

In the paragraph before this one Barnes talks about how, in the two previous cycles, Republicans began to lose control of the House, Senate and state constitutional offices. There are lot of reasons for this and we’ll circle back to that later on in the post. Keep it in mind, though, because it’s very important to always understand the events that created the opening required for The Colorado Model.

Again, this was written in 2008.

Last January, a “confidential” memo from a Democratic political consultant outlined an ambitious scheme for spending $11.7 million in Colorado this year to crush Republicans. The money would come from rich liberal donors in the state and would be spent primarily on defeating Senate candidate Bob Schaffer ($5.1 million) and Representative Marilyn Musgrave ($2.6 million), who are loathed by liberals for sponsoring a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The overarching aim: Lock in Democratic control of Colorado for years to come.

Amazingly, much of their model followed a model designed by libertarian minded political genius Eric O’Keefe. Now, for the record, I worked for Sam Adams Alliance and Eric O’Keefe in 2007-2008, so I’m very familiar with this design.

That was only the beginning of the buildup. Eric O’Keefe, chairman of the conservative Sam Adams Alliance in Chicago, says there are seven “capacities” that are required to drive a successful political strategy and keep it on offense: the capacity to generate intellectual ammunition, to pursue investigations, to mobilize for elections, to fight media bias, to pursue strategic litigation, to train new leaders, and to sustain a presence in the new media. Colorado liberals have now created institutions that possess all seven capacities. By working together, they generate political noise and attract press coverage. Explains Caldara, “Build an echo chamber and the media laps it up.”

O’Keefe was and is correct about the Seven Capacities. So why hasn’t it worked for the right the way it did for the left? Well, and we’re getting a bit sidetracked here but this is important… the “left” is fully funded and completely astroturf. Billionaires make sure that each and every aspect of what their “non-profits” do is over-funded and direct return on investment is not really relevant. Additionally, through unions and tax dollar fueled corporate socialism, there are powerful special interests groups that only succeed financially if the entire network of capacities succeed. There for, it is in the best interest of each individual organization, each activist, each information portal and each “player” to promote and market the effort of others. They share an agenda and mass promotion of the over all effort, regardless of who is in charge, is part of the ultimate goal.

On the “right,” however, non-profits scrape for dollars and cannot afford to promote/market the efforts of “competing” non-profits. Heck, conservative organizations go out of their way to take credit for work they didn’t do. This is because they must be able to show their donors accomplishments in order to continue getting funded. The “right” has no unions and special interests groups funded by tax dollars through corporate socialism. We tackle much of the seven capacities outside of the non-profit world, but we have to do so through the free-market prism. Meaning, there is ROI to be concerned with. Results matter and the system must be self-sustaining.

Imagine running a business that didn’t need to make money. Imagine having an army of bloggers who could attack liberals and progressive movements full time, with no need to make money from it. That’s exactly what they have.

First, there are the think tanks such as Bighorn and Bell and supposedly nonpartisan political advocacy groups like the Colorado clone of MoveOn.org called ProgressNowAction.org, founded in 2005. Another clone, this one a local version of Media Matters known as Colorado Media Matters, was created two years ago to harass journalists and editorial writers who don’t push the liberal line.

There’s a “public interest” law firm, Colorado Ethics Watch, established in 2006, plus an online newspaper, the Colorado Independent, with a team of reporters to ferret out wrongdoing by Republicans, also begun in 2006. And there’s a school to train new liberal leaders, the Center for Progressive Leadership Colorado, as well as new media outlets with bloggers and online news and gossip, including ColoradoPols.com and SquareState.net. That covers all seven capacities. Count them.

It’s unclear exactly who is funding these outfits, since they don’t have to disclose their donors. But the band of rich liberals are assumed to be the biggest contributors. And that’s part of the problem for conservatives and Republicans. They don’t have a cadre of what Caldara calls “super spenders” to tap for money, and Republicans have lacked the gumption and foresight to build a comparable conservative infrastructure.

The Colorado Independent played a critical role in what happened from 2006 to 2010. The state wide “news” site was set up for the sole purpose of putting Republicans on defense in terms of media strategy. The Colorado Independent would attack candidates, often times using a shallow or completely false premise, for the simple purpose of making the candidate operate from defense. By the time a candidate was able to get past an accusation, a new one would arrive on the campaign door step.

Barnes explains.

To their distress, Republicans have discovered how skillful the liberal collective is at bedeviling them. It works quite simply. The investigative arm uncovers some alleged wrongdoing by a Republican candidate or official or plays up what someone else has claimed. Then Ethics Watch steps in and demands an official investigation, and ProgressNowAction.org jumps on the story. This is synergy at work. It spurs political chatter. Finally, the mainstream media are forced to report on it.

Republican secretary of state Mike Coffman was hounded for months by Colorado Confidential, now the Colorado Independent, for allowing a state employee to run a side business and not reporting a supposed conflict of interest too microscopic to be worth explaining. The mainstream media eventually picked up the story, and Colorado Ethics Watch filed a formal complaint. Later, an official audit found no wrongdoing, but only after Coffman had been publicly pilloried. The episode didn’t help his current campaign for a U.S. House seat.

So we know what infrastructure was set up and how it was used. Now let’s get back to the window created for the model to work.

In 2005, Republicans split over Referendum C, designed to waive the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (known as TABOR) for five years. Passed in 1992, TABOR limited spending hikes to inflation and population growth, required any surplus to be refunded to taxpayers, and mandated a referendum to raise taxes. Conservatives fervently opposed suspending TABOR. But Owens and a handful of Republican leaders joined with Democrats to pass the referendum in order to fund education and transportation initiatives.

Allow me to repeat that last line… “a handful of Republican leaders joined with Democrats to pass the referendum in order to fund education and transportation initiatives.”

Republicans showed Colorado taxpayers they would no longer be their champion. Taxpayers no longer had proper representation. The Colorado model stepped in and took advantage.

Here we are in 2013, scratching our heads and wondering how a state like Colorado could be so malicious towards the 2nd Amendment. Truth is, the state legislature is the result of this… from a paragraph quoted at the beginning of this story.

Last January, a “confidential” memo from a Democratic political consultant outlined an ambitious scheme for spending $11.7 million in Colorado this year to crush Republicans. The money would come from rich liberal donors in the state and would be spent primarily on defeating Senate candidate Bob Schaffer ($5.1 million) and Representative Marilyn Musgrave ($2.6 million), who are loathed by liberals for sponsoring a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The overarching aim: Lock in Democratic control of Colorado for years to come.

They locked in Democrat control. But these are not the old Democrats of Colorado’s recent history. These are a new breed of Democrats. They’re out to poison the well and in a permanent manner. And they want to poison the well in every state.

The Colorado lawmakers who are now seeking to destroy the 2nd Amendment in their state are the result of what began in 2006. It began with regressive, special interest millionaires funding big government candidates immediately following tax hikes by failed Republicans. It’s ending with bans on guns. Essentially, the outlaw of liberty.

States like Virginia are now just as weak as Colorado was back in 2006. Governor Bob McDonnell and Republican leaders in the state legislature just passed the biggest tax hike in the history of Virginia (The Governor hasn’t signed it yet, but he pushed for it). Do taxpayers have a champion in Virginia? Taxpayers might have new candidates making new promises, but those same promises were made just a few years ago.

Will The Colorado Model become the Virginia Model? The Florida Model? The Arizona Model?

It’s already been tested and proven successful. They’ve said they want to replicate it. Why would we not believe them?

Think about this, folks. Know your enemy. Know their methods and their goals.

Next week we’ll look at the players/funders behind all of this.

Read More
Two of The Biggest Names for 2016 Are Tax Hiking Republicans
Mar04

Two of The Biggest Names for 2016 Are Tax Hiking Republicans

You may think it’s too early to be discussing this. But mark my words… in 2014 you’re going to hear a lot of talk about two names. Yes, they’ll begin campaigning for 2016, in 2014.

  • Bob McDonnell
  • Jeb Bush

Anyone who watched the 2012 election cycle unfold should cringe at the sound of these two names. While many pundits, analysts and Karl Rove type party hacks will point at 2012 to proclaim the GOP lost due lack of minorities (especially hispanics) voting to the right, they ignore what should be the most obvious fact. Mitt Romney lost 10,000,000 votes that John McCain had. These are party base voters, and they refused to cast a nod in the direction of a big government platform attached to the past of Mitt Romney. Bob McDonnell and Jeb Bush are no better. In Fact, in some ways they’re worse.

You see, Mitt Romney is what he is. A Blue state, northeastern Republican who didn’t spend his entire career making promises and pledges to conservatives. Romney was always a big government moderate. That wasn’t up for dispute. Romney’s campaign was more based on contrast between Capitalism and Socialism. Unfortunately, Romney’s version of Capitalism was soaked in big government involvement. GOP base voters opted out, while Obama’s base turned out in full force. The few left in the middle had to pick between the rich guy from MA and the nice guy with good speeches.

Bob McDonnell, on the other hand, is an entirely different political animal. McDonnell just passed a record $6 BILLION tax hike on Virginians. This after years and years of no tax pledges and promises. Then, after shoving a tax spoke into the eye of every Virginian who helped get him elected, he announced Obamacare exchanges would likely take hold in Virginia. Once again… breaking promises and betraying his base.

Jeb Bush just announced his interest in running in 2016. In the same announcement, he also threw conservatives under the bus, made clear his support for tax hikes and announced a need for amnesty. All of this while suggesting he is getting closer to a run for President.

wing

When I consider all of this I feel as if I’m in the twilight zone. I keep seeing someone on the wing. I keep telling folks there is someone on the wing. But will they listen?

Forward thinking, liberty minded voters need to be very, very cautious and aware. Know these two guys are going to be well funded and will be able to outlast more liberty based candidates in the GOP primary. If these guys are not politically knee-capped early on, you may be looking at yet another four years of liberty crushing big government.

-Eric Odom

P.S. Just for kicks…

Read More
Illinois Must Allow Citizens To Carry Guns. Illinois Responds With Proposals To Ban Guns.
Jan03

Illinois Must Allow Citizens To Carry Guns. Illinois Responds With Proposals To Ban Guns.

So we first heard that a court agreed with the U.S. Constitution and informed Illinois that it could not prohibit law abiding citizens from carrying a firearm.

The state of Illinois would have to allow ordinary citizens to carry weapons under a federal appeals court ruling issued today, but the judges also gave lawmakers 180 days to put their own version of the law in place.

In a 2-1 decision that is a major victory for the National Rifle Association, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said the state’s ban on carrying a weapon in public is unconstitutional.

This was great news for the Constitution, for the rights of the American people, and for law-abiding residents of Illinois. We all know that Chicago, possibly one of the most violent cities in the nation, has extremely strict gun control laws. The problem, of course, is the laws only keep law-abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves. The laws do nothing to keep criminals from illegally obtaining firearms.

As it turns out, the state legislature in Illinois feels it would like to follow the Chicago model state wide. Democrats are now pushing two bills to ban 75% of handguns and 50% of long guns.

Illinois Senate Democrats advanced legislation late Wednesday to restrict semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines, pressing forward with new gun control measures in the waning days of the session over the objections of firearms groups. 

Amid the developments, the Illinois State Rifle Association issued an “urgent alert” to its members warning them that Democratic legislators were trying to push through last-minute anti-gun legislation.

“There would be no exemptions and no grandfathering,” the group stated in its alert. “You would have a very short window to turn in your guns to the state police and avoid prosecution.”

I don’t quite understand the open disdain for self-protection via a firearm. Especially when the Chicago model clearly shows such a violation of the Constitution makes matters worse.

Read More