{We} agree whole-heartedly- which is one of the many reasons {we’re} against (intentional verbiage) Romney as the nominee and for Gingrich. Let {us} explain:

1. Romney was reportedly picked by the leadership of the RNC. He was supposedly picked because he’d networked with those leaders; and agreed to finance his own campaign. Now if your job is to raise millions of dollars for the next Presidential campaign and you’ve fallen short by a large margin: you’re more inclined to push someone who will hide your mistake.

2. Romney lacks Character, (in our opinion). Before the Primary season, those candidates who knew they were going to run met and agreed that “beating Obama” was more important than any one persons aspirations. The agreement was made among them that each would campaign solely on policy differences and that attacking each other personally would not happen. Governor Romney was reportedly and agreed to the stipulation. This meeting was confirmed by campaign insiders, and explains why Gingrich tried for two weeks to salvage the agreement with Romney in Iowa. Understanding that, it’s no accident that Romney touts his Mormon faith. He understands the American people think of Donny and Marie Osmond when they hear “Mormon”. Which is one of the reasons you hear the term “Mormon” instead of “Latter Day Saints”. Fewer people know what LDS stands for, and understand Mormon more readily.

3. The RNC leadership has reportedly decided they can win this election without the help of working- class Republicans, and more especially those they label “Evangelicals”. They apparently don’t like being tied to a bunch of “anti-abortion kooks” who’ve twisted their arms for so long.

4. Romney is being a hypocrite (granted that’s what politicians do, but that doesn’t mean we sit idly by and excuse it). He KNOWS Gingrich is extremely repentant about his life-decisions and has done all he could possibly do to mend the fences, and heal the wounds: yet (even though he gave his word not to do so) Romney resorted to personal attacks on a man for past issues- all for political gain.

We would be just as offended if one of our friends graduated from alcohol rehab and rebuilt a life that repudiated his past mistakes- then to have someone try to re-brand him as a drunk for monetary gain.

5. We consider abortion far more egregious than 3 divorces that all efforts have been made to diminish the pain of those decisions. Two additional thoughts:
a. If Governor Romney decides to hold Gingrich to past mistakes: he is just as guilty for his past decisions. If Gingrich is to answer for a lifestyle that ended in the year 2000, the Romney should be held responsible for legislation he owned up to the year 2007.
b. Except for the RNC leadership reportedly trying to ostracize Evangelicals, why else would they offer a candidate so weak on the number one reason that demographic has remained loyal to the GOP?

6. {We} mention these issues in the social media and the first response was to be accused of being a Democrat mole (in so many words). When that accusation was challenged that accusation, it was denied, (which weakened the accusation) and was basically told to “shut up and get in line” by a local politician. When asked to clarify the verbiage, that politician responded “I stand by my statement”.

7. Because {we} AGREE with you (that voters should think independently), {we} support Newt Gingrich instead of Mitt Romney.

(We} find those who reportedly contrived this situation to be
a. ungrateful for the sacrifices “Evangelicals” have made to support the GOP. Furthermore we
b. resent the idea of shutting out a large plurality of the Republican voter base simply because they don’t accommodate someone’s social sensitivities, (growing up, we called this “snooty”).
c. For many evangelicals, their number one prerequisite is that candidate MUST be pro-life.
d. People don’t like being told what to think.
e. People don’t like being told what to do by people who are supposed to listen to them, not to supervise them.

How could the party of Lincoln, the party of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. contrive such bigotry? How can Republicans support that bigotry? If these reports have any merit, (which the evidence reasonably concludes they have) how can any honest voter vote for the candidate that is the catalyst for such nefarious activity? Morning in America repudiates the entire paradigm. What’s your choice?

I’m taking this unusual step to expose a weakness of Mitt Romney.A weakness that will lose him the election if he becomes the Republican nominee. Not because I dont like the man, but because his nomination will insure an Obama victory in November.

A primary voter has the responsibility to help nominate the strongest possible candidate to represent his/her Party to the American people. Which means the primary voter has to think beyond their personal preferrences and loyalties and work to find the best possible scenario for the general election. Having said that; let me continue: In 2002 Mitt Romney was filmed as he ran for the office of Governor in the state of Massechusetts. The greatest concern the people of that state had was the idea that Mr. Romney was pro-life running for a seat in a pro-choice state. Mr. Romney went to great lengths to assure the people of Massachusetts that he was indeed pro-choice.

Romney brought up the issue:

“I want to bring up a point in regards to my views regarding my position to protect a womans right to choose. I’ve been very clear on that: I will preserve, and protect a womans right to choose, and I am devoted and dedicated to honoring mt word in that regard.” He goes on to reiterate: “again I will preserve and protect a womans right to choose” When accused of tightening requirements that lead up an abortion.

Mr. Romney proffered: “There’s not a “papers-width” with regard to the difference between me and “.

Question for Mr. Romney: The Supreme Court recently upheld a law requiring a 24 hour waiting period for councilling women on abortion, could you envision a 24 hour waiting period in Massechusetts?

Mr. Romney responded: “I want the voters to know exactly where I stand: I am not going to change our pro-choice laws in any way. I will preserve them, I will protect them, I will enforce them (stated with much emphasis), and therefore I’m not going to make any changes that would make it more difficult for a woman to make that choice.”

When asked about endorsment from a pro-life organization Mr Romney replied:

“This is a more important election than to allow rhetoric get in the way. “My political position has been the same throughout my political career”. He then explained that his mother is pro-choice and he felt her election loss was unfair because it hinged on her pro-choice stand.

Romney explains his pro-life pro-choice position:

“While I personally believe abortion is not a choice for me, I believe a woman should have that choice to make for herself. I hold the view that this stance is one of sepration of church and state.”

Mr. Romney then explained: “I dont accept the label of pro-choice or pro-life. Instead I make it clear that I will preserve a womans right to choose.”

When asked again about the pro-life organization that endorsed him Mr. Romney replied

“I didn’t seek it, I didn’t ask for it, I didnt accept it. I did not in any way acknowledge their endorsment.” Mr Romney becomes clearly irritated by the accusation.Mr. Romney struggles with “just the right verbiage”:

“I’m sitting here right now telling you I do. . .not . . .take the position of a pro-life candidate.I’m in favor of protecting and preserving a womans right to choose!” This is an issue that’s important and I’ve established my position. Your insistence otherwise is unbecoming.”

Mr. Romney found just the right words to keep himself viable in that election- but he struggled a bit

Mr. Romney closed his interview

“when I’m elected, and I believe I will be: I will preserve and protect a womans right to choose.”

Why is this important? Because the social conservatives will not vote for a pro-choice candidate- even one who wouldn’t personally choose to have one. Before you make you decision, ask yourself if you remember the last time the leadership of the Republican Party endorsed a moderate candidate? His name was John mcCain. The time before that was a nice man named Bob Dole.

Can America risk another four years of Barack Obama? A pro-choice candidate will insure that to happen. Please vote in the primary, and please vote wisely.

Having trouble getting the video to link so this is the url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4

Consider the facts: President Obama has so violated the trust of mainstream America (“mainstream” accurately describes the new conservative movement according to demographic studies of the Tea Party movement). Presidential advisor David Axelrod has proclaimed that the Presidents campaign strategy is to “help the Republican free itself” of mainstream America voters- and win Obama’s reelection bid in the process. The Old Media, with their documented disdain for mainstream Americans is once again: a vital arm of the Democrat Party strategy. Republican voters should make their decisions on whom they choose based on facts and history, rather than joining a bad wagon: prudence is most important in this election cycle. Remember the Old Media is the message-barer for the leftist Democrat Party- then look to see who has gone unscathed during the primary process: and you see just who the Left wants to face in November: that person is Willard Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney comes from the state that gave kept Ted Kennedy in office for more than forty-five years, and John F. Kerry for more than twenty-five years. In all fairness Romney worked well with the leftist of his state: he developed the model for Obamacare, worked to include abortion on demand as a state supplied procedure, and made sure Planned Parenthood (which can reasonably be described as a chain of abortion clinics) was included in the tax payer’s budgets. Because of this fact, a Romney nomination would run the risk of alienating pro-life voters. Secondly, a Romney nomination effectively removes Obamas Healthcare initiative from the arena of ideas during the election. The result could be a redux of the 2000 election when thousands of voter simply refused to vote for the top of the ticket.

Mitt Romeny is the one Republican candidate whom the Old Media would prefer over some supply-side Reaganite who would dare to call them on their bigotries, and their propensity to mishandle the reporting of current events. Better the blandness of a weak leader who would be easier to overthrow in four years than a candidate with a mainstream-approved vision of America, better than someone they can’t castigate as a buffoon, better than Newt Gingrich; who would lower taxes, get control of American borders, reestablish America as the “shining light on a hill” to a world now willing to revisit conservatism for the sake of their own citizens prosperity.

Inside reports say that private journalist blogs (forums for Old Media elites to pontificate and exchange ideas privately) have already sharpened their knives as they wait with anticipation for Mitt Romney to win the Republican Primary. With jokes about his “holy-underwear” and his “other wives” being their private jokes. Waiting anxiously for the right moment to share their humor publically on MSNBC and Sunday Morning talks shows. They are indeed, salivating for a Romney win as the one real chance to insure Obama “gets his second term”.

The prudent Republican voter will make his decision based on all the facts, as well as consider the candidate who has no hidden surprises for the Old Media to “discover” the second week of October. The prudent Republican will choose a candidate that will attract with his policies the mainstream of America. The prudent Republican will choose a candidate that confounds the Old media and scares the Marxist wing of the Democrat Party into profound discouragement. The prudent Republican will choose a confirmed, tested conservative. The prudent Republican will not alienate the largest demographic of their party with someone who has, at best: a questionable position on abortion.

The prudent, conservative Republican will nominate and vote for candidate Newt Gingrich: the One candidate whom mainstream Americans can endorse without reservation.

Democrats presented themselves as the bold new party of fiscal responsibility. They promised to go back to the days of spending restraints, balanced budgets, and lowering the deficit. Instead, Americans got an Operation Barbarossa on the fiscal stability of the nation: an attack that has stalled the economy on most every front. An attack that’s left the American People quaking in fear and trepidation about the national debt and the futures of their offspring for generations to come. A confection of every strain of (dare we say it?) Marxism that could be concocted within the confines of the US Constitution. National polling shows that 75% of Americans understand the nation is heading in the wrong direction. A direction opposite of what Democrats promised back in 2006.

These Democrats and their supporters (mostly public sector unions, those dependent on tax payer dollars for their substance, and self-identified Marxist organizations) herald the 1936 teachings of John Maynard Keynes. Keynes ignorantly opined that the private sector was adversarial towards the economy that public sector, and subsequently; policies were needed to balance the paradigm. For example, if a private sector ditch digger originally made $20,000 annually (approximately ten bucks an hour) then public sector should offer $22,000 annually with added benefits- thus forcing the private sector position to re-think its economic model. What it doesn’t take into account is the captive market of the public sector- the fact that tax payers can’t reasonably shop for a better price for a comparable service. “Pay the louse or lose your house” is the reality. The opposite is the reality in the private sector. For most every purchase, the prudent customer shops for a combination of the best product versus the best price available. This is the problem with Keynes’ assertions.

America experienced that very situation and Democrats developed a “minimum wage”. At some point this may have been a good idea. The idea, though; has turned into a monster that has reached beyond the economy and disrupted the lives of the American family. There was a time in recent history where a family could live on a single income; and if things got “tight” the other spouse could enter the work force long enough to regain financial stability- then return to regain the original arrangement. Most often the situation focused on the nurturing of children and homemaking. The model was a chosen model for each family to make: specifically because the financial stability of the nation allowed the decision. Furthermore, the minimum wage became a political tool. Unions for example use the “wage” as the standard for their negotiations. For example, the entry-level job at McWherevers that gets an increase of 10% results in the union member getting a 10% wage increase as well- thus making the wage a political tool to pay off loyal union members. This is Keynesian applications “gone wild”.

Keynesian economic models were tweaked between the Great Depression and the 1970’s when they nearly drove the nation into a second Depression. Still, well meaning politicians such as Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter tried to augment or broaden their applications: with dismal results. Americans, ready to abandon the model elected Ronald Reagan . Reagan offered a supply-side model (Democrats call the model “trickle down” as an attempt to divide Americans- not because the model doesn’t work, but because it negates their ability to re-pay unions with someone elses money). The model says “if a government charges 0% for taxes it takes in nothing. If it charges 100% for taxes, it takes in nothing. Somewhere in between those two numbers is the optimal percentage that allows workers to keep more of their wages while supplying sufficient levels of cash flow for the government. The model, coupled with decreased Keynesian interference has proved itself to be more effective.

Todays voter has been educated on the differences between supply-side and Keynesian that they no longer need a champion for the model- THEY arechampions in themselves- and the politically minded resent their knowledge of the issue. Americans understand the ONLY reason to continue to gravitate to Keynes model is to perpetuate the political advantage of unions and tax-paid employees- which explains why the Democrat Party continues to support this destructive model.

Because Democrats CANNOT operate without the wide-spread support of the unions, they CANNOT make the best decision for America and perpetuate the viability of their Party. Which puts them in a position of being adversarial towards the welfare (as in “condition” not “free stuff” That clarification for liberal readers) of the nation- and the private lives of American workers.

On the other hand we see President Obama who believes in socialism: and is dragging the rest of his party down the primrose path promised by Karl Marx. There is no reasonable refutation of this premise as a fact.

Americans agree that the first responsibility of the upcoming election is to fire Obama- but just as important is the need to remove the Democrat quislings for their willingness to harm the nation to perpetuate their influence with labor unions.

I. Reasons we lost.

1. We allowed the Democrats to pick our candidate.
a. through cross party voting.
b. By allowing the media to elevate one candidate over another
c. Our Candidate was
i. a weak conservative.
ii. not inspiring
iii. too bi-partisan

2. We (Republicans)didn’t back our Candidate soon enough.
-we were gaining momentum the last 2 months before the election, but it wasn’t enough to over come the Democrats early voting trends.
3. We didn’t exploit our opportunities.
a. make issue of their hatred for anyone who disagrees with them
b. We were afraid of being stigmatized. Because Obama was black, we tended to walk on egg-shells.
c. We played “nice”. This was McCain’s decision, but again he wasn’t inspiring until he brought Palin to the ticket.
d. we didn’t use the media bias in our favor.
e. We didn’t use the Democrats racism to illustrate their hypocrisy.
4. We didn’t play to our strengths.
(we let the Democrats set the agenda- we were forever playing catch up, we were on the Defensive)
a. Correct ideas on families and family values.
b. Correct ideas on fiscal responsibility
c. We are the more (most) compassionate Party.
5. We didn’t challenge the Media on their bias.
a. we continued to treat them professionally, when they performed their duties unprofessionally.
b. When they became part of the Obama campaign (documented 6 months out- but we already knew it) we continued to treat them as unbiased.
c. We didn’t expose their personal flaws when they stigmatized ours.

Had we mittigated these issues, our Party would’ve won the election. If we do this NOW, we will will the next two election cycles.

II. Solutions to Consider

1. Stop the party-crossing to vote for your opponents weaker candidate.
a. stop last minute (same day) registrations
b. If a person changes party’s in the primary, then that
ballot becomes an automatic vote for that candidate in the General election. (this is a hard one, but something to introduce into the discussion).

2. Make Issue of the Democrats’ Bias’s
a. Label them as “Haters” or some other accurate deliniation. The more they discuss the issue, the more evident it becomes the label is true.
b. Make issue of their “Anti-Democracy” practices: Black Panther poll workers, ACORN associations, using union thugs to assault old people, Sheila Jackson Lee ignoring constituent by talking on her cell phone, union thugs using the “N-word” while beating a black conservative, Democrats using the term “Teabagger” to describe their constituents, Pete Stark informing a constituent that he “isn’t worth the urine it would take to pee on your leg”, of course just about anything from Alan Grayson. . .
c. Make issue of public workers and elected Representatives who “tweak” the voting process to strengthen Democrat results, or diminish Republican results. Situations such as inequities at polls.
d. Make public bad-guys of these biased poll workers.
{this will take capital, I realize. Can you imagine radio spots identifying these issues? Then finishing with a statement like “we are the Republican Party, we don’t think this is how America is supposed to work”}

3. When we are threatened or physically attacked by Democrats; exploit the opportunity.
a.Have another Joe the Plumber say “I am not intimidated”.
b. Make local and state Democrats in the states where these thing happen “Bad guys”.

4. Identify, polish, and support Party leaders.
a. Both introverts to become familiar with issues and develop the positions we can support from the Party Platform and Extroverts to represent them to the public.
b. Stop using sound-bites. The fact that we are the party that “thinks” is our brand strength. Go out of the way to be clear, give an illustration, bring it to its logical conclussion. (Remember Reagan explain why he wasn’t a bigot? Taking the college team to his parents home because a hotel wouldn’t let one black player sleep in the hotel? That shut down the racist charge instantly).

5. Challenge the Medias Bias. Shame them when they incorporate it into their posture and ask questions, (ie: John Ziegler infuriated Contessa Brewer for incorporating her bias into his answers. Also remember Bush 41 asking Dan Rather if he wanted his career judged on 3 minutes of dead air time). This will force them to lose their tempers or become more cautious about allowing their bias’s into their profession.
a. If they attack a Republican, answer their questions with the question “where were you when ? OR: Why would you ask me that question when you wouldn’t ask a Democrat something just as damaging,{ie: what did Corrine Brown mean when she said to a latino “you all look alike to me?”}.

6. Expect, and communicate the expectation; that GOP Representatives represent the people of their home Districts. The moment they show symptoms of Potomac Fever, they get feedback from their constituents. This year’s Tea Party movement was an example. We would not have had to resort to such drastic measures if we’d been systematically delivering that feedback.

7.Galvanize and motive a humbled base. Recruit them early, and give them tasks and responsibilities. It’s their Republican Party: they hire politicians to represent them.
a. Find and inspire collegiate-aged voters. They have enormous amounts of energy and enthusiam. When you reach them early, they become your most loyal constituency.
b. Recruit young minorities.
i. formulate connections between them and the collegiate-aged Republicans.
ii. Create inner-city tutors. Help minorities achive the grades they need to become competitive. The problem is their schools aren’t effective. Send tutors to places like community centers to tutor. Give the volunteers shirts (polo/t-shirts) that Identify them as Young Republicans, or whatever group they belong: as long as it specifies Republican. This group can actually have car washes etc. to finance these.
c. Never-ever, critisize a Republican publically. All internal matters are private, family affairs.

8. Re-establish and defend our Brand-strengths: bi-partisanship is not the answer. it makes us look like “Democrat-light”.

9. Advertise our good people.
If there are 55 million Republicans and 1/3 are active in their communities, (ie Big Brother/Sister, Benevolence Workers, Volunteers, SUnday school teachers). Something in the vein of “I am the NRA or I’m Joe the Plumber”
i. A brief advertisement of of their service and who they are.
ii. Awards ceremony where the media is invited: identify the winners as “Republican
Award” winners .
iii. Sunday School teachers, RIF counselors, Homeless Shelter workers, etcetera. . .

10. Understand the Majority of the Media workers are not our friends.
a. they posture as friendly, then betray that trust when they report
b. they consistently are not fair, nor balanced. This would include the majorityof
the local media. Know your friends, and really know your enemies..

11. Understand that Democrats are NOT our friends.
The last administration tried to create a peace. The Dems took what they could, then bit
like a rabid dog (same thing with Reagan).

12. Obama’s liberal agenda is NOT to be cooperated with. His party has a clear majority in both houses. Let them hang themselves: by themselves. He’s a socialist, and should be branded as a socialist. (Wow, this was written before he was even President. Was I right, or what!?).

13. 2010 & 2012 began the day after the 2008 election!
a. ramp up and staff up.
b. Develop a sense of urgency right now.

III. Join the Republican Party.

1. Find where your strengths can be most effective
and participate.

2. Support you local leadership. Believe me; they know
things need to change. Local elections bare that to
be true.

3. Find the lowliest position that matches your
strengths: this will help your party immeasurably.

4. Support your Party! Make it strong, then you can
bring your concerns to the table. You gotta give
before you can get.

Granted, you may see some emotion in this verbiage, but we’d just come off an election that we should’ve won- based on ideas alone. If our party will stick to it’s platform; it will win elections consistently.

Unions stepped in with their own marketing campaign to subsidize their damaged reputations. They appealed to the innate patriotism of the American people with the slogan “Buy American”. This was effective because it reminded people- if they could buy an American built product; and get similar quality as a foreign built alternative: then patriotism urged you to help fellow-citizens, and therefore the nation by choosing the American made product. It was a good marketing approach because it was a reasonable assertion. In the process, unions established themselves as organizations of fellow-Americans who supported the country with their contribution to the economic work horse of the nation. Sadly, that marketing tool has proven to be Pollyannaish- and just doesn’t bare scrutiny.

When one considers the multiple occurrences of these unions sharing political platforms with self-identified Marxist, the violence they’ve been involved with, the degree and the number of documented confrontations with conservative Americans; it is reasonable to doubt both the patriotism of these organizations: and the validity of their claim to “buy American”. When someone seeks to diminish the rights of fellow citizens; their patriotism deserves to be questioned.

In several public forum sites, we’ve asked the question:

“Why should I buy a product that would support those who want to do me physical harm?”

We thought the question was reasonable as we documented the violence and the threats of violence of union members towards fellow-Americans. We followed up by documenting alternative sources for products such as automobiles where we could still purchase the needed product- and support nearly twice as many American families; often saving substantial percentages of the cost when compared to the product of those with adversarial positions.

We received the typical answers “Because you’re supporting America” “Stop your whining” or my favorite: “you watch too much Fox News”. None of which answer the root of the question.

For three of the past five years the Democrat Party has used union thugs to intimidate and even assault Americans who disagree with the Democrat agenda. From Black Panthers at polling stations to violence at town hall meetings, to false accusations of assault by elected officials, to a myriad of documented accounts of physical violence committed on those fellow Americans: all part of the Democrat Party strategy- with the unions acting as their goon squad. Still not one Democrat answered the question with a yes or a no.

Capitalism gives us the answer: just don’t buy their products. With non-union shops around the nation we cannot think of one product or service that requires using violent unions to guarantee quality. The conservative American can help nearly twice the amount of families by buying a non-union product or service- (again) often with impressive savings.

In the past we paid more to support fellow Americans: now they assault us for disagreeing with a socialist agenda. The time has come to show our disdain in a way that will get their attention: refuse to support their families by avoiding their products

It’s the reasonable thing to do.

The lessons are many, both for politicians and citizens. Politicians should learn that they are indeed employed by the people that vote for them and those whom they represent must have their allegiance. Most Americans aren’t impressed by their office, the fawning that comes from living on the public dime, or whom their “leadership” thinks they should respond to. They weren’t sent to our capitals or our local chambers to formulate internal alliances that contradict what or whom they were elected to represent.

The citizenry must also realize that it also has a responsibility to offer; and elect candidates that represent their views instead of basing their votes on long-term friendships, name recognition, or the “herd-mentality”. Just as politicians have their responsibilities; the voter has his as well. He is responsible to be educated on the issues- and learn from his previous mistakes. If we, (the voters) have learned anything; it’s that politicians will trade those old friendships for the new ones that are predicated on their own aspirations. This antiquated template of ignorance, cronyism, narcissism, and political graft has literally brought the nation to its knees- and enough is enough. This is a political model that cannot continue if the nation is to return to her strength:”We the People”. Most Americans understand this principle; and many have responded with a resurgence of grassroots activism. The expectation is one of fiscal responsibility, a return to Constitutional principles, and the re-found element of holding a politician accountable.

America has experienced several such revivals of nationalism in the past- most notably the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan. Piecing together the best elements of conservative (the word meaning “favoring traditional values and practices) principles, he brought them together to formulate a practical, effective approach to fiscal responsibility, national defense and a less intrusive government. These principles were later re-asserted by the 104th Congress which was elected in 1996. BOTH movements brought together the vast supporters of the elements of conservatism; and both were unique in that they inspired by a single, or a group of politicians.

Today’s conservative movement is different in that it doesn’t rely on the charisma of politicians- but rather on the intelligence and the determination of average Americans who understand the principles of conservatism- and insist their elected representatives support them as well. Today’s voters recognize the founding principles of America, and again:are exercising their rights to insist that the elements of a Representative Republic be observed- without apology or quarter.

Moving forward, the tide should focus on the basic principles that have allowed America to work: allowing the private sector to create more jobs. Lower the tax rates, and exercise fiscal prudence. Also electeds who support the Constitution should enact Right to Work legislation that diminishes the legality of unions holding states as hostages. Furthermore legislation addressing; and the pursuit of illegal workers preventing American citizens from finding employment should be voted on- and enacted: N-O-W. None of these issues have gone away just because they aren’t convenient political year hot buttons.

Finally; the Founding Fathers of our nation never intended for the nation to be lead by carrier politicians, they trusted the working man, the business man, and the farmer who understand the issues of the day. To bring these elements together in an organized setting was the vision- was the beauty of the Representative Republic. We adamately support returning to that political model.

This is the day the nation faces, these are the issues she must address if she is to continue to be the city shining on the hill. It’s a work day, but it isn’t insurmountable. Time to dress in working attire and face the day.

Good morning America.

There is an organized movement within the Democrat Party to replace its stated perspectives with a hidden agenda. The movement is a concerted effort to turn the Democrat party into something more closely akin to a Marx Party. Before one rolls their eyes and dismisses the assertion- consider the evidence here, here, and here. Of course the methods of the Marxist has always been to create strife between economic divisions and to encourage violence to exacerbate the intensity of that created strife.

In America, the strife is also created between races. The undisputable bigotries of the Obama Administration have encouraged his supporters to expose their own. Take for example the racial violence in Wisconsin:
“…Witnesses told WTMJ-AM (620) that dozens to hundreds of young black people were beating white people as they left the fair late Thursday night. Patrice Harris, a spokeswoman for the fair, said a police alert she was given indicated four people were hurt.

“It looked like they were just going after white guys, white people,” Norb Roffers of Wind Lake told WTMJ. He said he left the State Fair entrance near the corner of S. 84th St. and W. Schlinger Ave. in West Allis.

One eyewitness, a concession worker who works near the midway area, told the Journal Sentinel that large groups of African-American youths ran through the midway area, knocking over young children and adults, disrupting midway rides and tearing signs up.

“I have never seen anything like it,” the worker said.

Read more here.

Here we have a generation of young blacks who’ve been taught by word or example hatred towards another race: hatred so vehement that it precipitates criminal activity and violence- all without ONE word of rebuke from the White House: even in the face of Racism incarnate.

Also take for example the mainstream medias’ bigotries towards those who disagree with their personal beliefs- never mind the fact that many aren’t hired to be pundits, but reporters of the news. They use their opinions as the foundation for their stories- and their opinions are quite bigoted in themselves. When a person insults those who involve themselves in the Tea Party as homosexuals- they reveal they’re not only bigotry towards those who ascribe to the tenets of the Constitution, but towards the homosexuals as well. Even though they patronize them in the political arena- and during election cycles .

Consider also the recent events that have black Democrats feeding racial tensions. For example the message of Fredrika Wilson in a black community “the real enemy is the Tea Party”. Not terrorist, not failed policies; but those who use their Constitutional rights to organize and make the argument for fiscal responsibility, and insist politicians listen to their constituents. She postures in her assertion that the Tea Party movement is based on racism instead of the Constitution. She does so by posturing them against Obama personally. The attempt is so blatant that one can hear one audience member proclaim “Oh my God” at the thought of such “racism”. The reality is Democrats own studies conclude the assertion to be untrue.

If there is still any doubt, reference all of this to the Democrat Partys blabber mouth: Maxine Waters. It seems Ms. Waters can’t even look past race when she demanded a black Obama aid to say “black” instead of ethnic demographies. This signifying that Waters interest; and surreptitiously the Democrats primary concern is to galvanize their voter base specifically on their race. How is this anything BUT racism?

From false accusations of being spat upon and called “nigger” by Tea Party members (a $1 million reward was never collected for proof that this actually happened), to Waters proclaiming “you all look alike to me”, to throwing Oreo cookies at Republican Michael Steele: all expose the racism that the Democrat Party feeds to fuel the hatred of their fellow-bigots.

When one examines this current chain of events, it’s reasonable to conclude that The Democrat Party continues to use these Marxist tactics: violence, bigotry, racism; because the nation won’t buy into their vision of America without them.

Can it actually be that black leaders in America actually want race relations to deteriorate? Can it be that, even though Democrats own studies show Republicans aren’t racist, that perpetuating the perception is all they have to offer black voters? This not only reveals their disrespect for the race as a whole, but concludes they have no interest in the demographic beyond their own political gain.

The time has come for black voters to think for themselves, repudiate the racism, the denigration and the perception that you cannot survive without the Democrats who’ve played you like Nero played his fiddle. It’s time to acknowledge that you have more in common with those who don’t belittle your belief in God, diminish your common sense, or your desire to see your children do a little better- just like every other American. It’s time you refused to continue to live on the plantation where you eat the scraps from the masters table; it’s time you stopped seeing yourself as different from “those people” and joined the American mainstream. The America that offers you more opportunity to become whatever you want to become is waiting for you with wide open arms. All you have to do is realize that you’re more than you’ve been told you are, then pack your bags and tell the master that you refuse to live on the plantation any longer.

Ask yourself, do you really believe skin tone makes a person different? Or do you believe the differences in America come from perspectives? Do you really think there are no opportunities without the master- or do you believe the Constitution when it says the Creator made all men equal?

The father of the modern welfare system (Lyndon B. Johnson) thought so little of you that he called Dr. King “that nigger preacher”. Reverend Jesse Jackson was overheard calling blacks “niggers” on an open microphone. The negative perspective of who you are hasn’t changed- these haters, these bigots just need your vote! This racism, this bigotry has even caused your own children to think it acceptable to call each other by this derogatory word- all in the name of perpetuating Democrat votes.

Ask yourself if it’s not better for you-along with your fellow-Americans to have low taxes, higher employment percentages, more opportunities for your children based on their talents and abilities, and neighbors who welcome you based on the good person you are instead of your skin color?

It’s time to leave the plantation and make your mark on the world. Can I help you pack?

Now suppose that person had become violent or dismissive towards you when you warned him that his spending habits were unsustainable and reckless BEFORE the credit line was maxed out. Further understand that this person wants more credit to continue to spend that money- with no apology or acknowledgement that his irresponsibility has created a financial nightmare for his family and business partners. Would you put your family at risk by guaranteeing this sought after increase? Only a fool would answer in the affirmative.

Now consider the fact that the current administration has spent more money than any administration in American history; a total that rivals all the other administrations in total. Spending so draconian that it created an uprising from citizens who’d been content to lead their own lives; make their livings, and focus on their families and personal pursuits. People who’d voted for the Administration because it promised new financial responsibility. The response? Violence, intimidation tactics; targeted government intimidation and fabricated accusations of bigotry and racism. The analogy of an ungrateful friend or family member really starts to make sense, doesn’t it? MIA could reasonable oppose the raising of the national debt ceiling.

Think of the advice you’d give to someone in a similar situation. “No, I won’t loan you anymore money, no I wont co-sign for you; no I won’t enable you further. The best thing for you is to stop spending, accept a lower debt score for two years, and rebuild your credit as you learn how to better manage your cash flow” is the responsible advice to offer someone in this situation. It makes sense, it’s an accomplishable goal, and it’s the prudent action to take- in spite of the wails from the errant spender!

What are the options?

a) Make a deal with the devil. Ronald Reagan tried this. It kept him from achieving his goal of a balanced budget before the end of his administration. You remember? Democrats convinced him to increase spending modestly so government organizations could spend their way into a state of thriftiness. At the end of the agreement, the money had been wasted, the entities had become more bloated; and the Democrats tried to vilify Reagan as heartless. This is a bad option based on the history of the Democrat Party- a history they continue to represent three decades later.

b) Give the Obamanacs their debt ceiling increase out of fear or intimidation. Not only would this option be a slap in the face of those who gave the Republican Party another chance, but also a daggar in the financial heart of our children and our grandchildren. Two generations already owe these young people apologies for their irresponsibility, their greed, and their willingness to steal money from the unborn, ( almost as bad as murdering them before they’re born, don’t you think?).

c) Position against the irresponsible spending, take control of the budget, (where in the Constitution does one read that the budget originates from the Executive Branch?). Move forward with a plan that redeems the American credit rating. After all, moving from AAA to AA for 2-3 years is far better than unchecked spending that will ultimately make Greece appear the benchmark for fiscal prudence.
Americans are at a place where they’re willing to do with less for a stronger national future. This is the time to cut extraneous programs, downsize others to a size that exemplifies efficiency; and give the nation room to rebuild to a place of superiority.

If someone with a personal situation came to you for financial advice, this would be your recommendation. “You’ve spent money like an ignorant young person who never considered the Visa bill has to get paid. Now you threaten Americans because they want you do what they must do: live within their means. To quote any financial adviser worth their salt: “suck it up, stop complaining; and grow up son”.

You can threaten, you can get angry and pout; ultimately, it’s time you learned to spend reasonably. You’ll thank us for making you do so when you become more mature.

The current economic Depression (yes the crisis qualifies as a textbook depression) requires the prudence to look at the results of the two predominant economic models. The current information illustrates that states with Republican leadership have actually developed budget surpluses; those with Democrat leadership continue to experience draconian deficits.

The list of both is convincing- Republicans are better at handling economies than Democrats. The list so far includes:

Surpluses:
Indiana – Republican
Idaho- Republican
Maine- Republican
Ohio- Republican
Arkansas- Republican
S. Carolina- Republican
Iowa- Republican
Virginia- Republican
Mississippi- Republican
Arizona- Republican
Pennsylvania- Republican
Michigan- Republican
Alaska- Republican
Wisconsin- Republican
Texas- Republican
New Jersey- Republican

Deficits:
California- Democrat
Connecticut- Democrat
New York- Democrat
Washington – Democrat
Vermont- Democrat
Oregon- Democrat
Tennessee- Democrat

While some would offer the assertion that these states formerly had Democrat leadership, one can counter that assertion by noting that those states were still facing deficits until the leadership changed. Specifically, spending policies made the difference. What this confirms is taxes aren’t the issue; but rather SPENDING.

Therefore; the logical answer to the current fiscal crisis isn’t to raise taxes- This idea has been proven to deminish tax revenues, and cause those hit hardest by the increases to pull their monies from circulation- thus harming the economy by reducing employment, creating inflation, and lowering those much needed tax receipts.

Those politicians who adhered to the Republican Party policy actually increased their states revenues. This is no surprise to anyone who understands American history- or finances for that matter. The GOP would do well to insist that candidates support the party platform- or offer a candidate who will. Candidates such as Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Allen West, and Marco Rubio just to name a few.

Again, the question is who do you trust with the economy? We support those who support proven financial principles: namely those delineated in the Republican party Platform.

The proof is the bottom line: Republicans get better results.