You are here: Home / Archives for Commentary

How Far Will Obama Go To Get Re-Elected?

May 16, 2012 By 15 Comments

obama speech 7 SC How Far Will Obama Go To Get Re Elected?

What does he know?

How can he think he’ll be re-elected running against the continually expressed views and will of the American people? Not just running against the white, non-Muslim people as he has been doing, but now running against blacks, Hispanics, and even Muslims!

What about his support for wealth redistribution, which Americans reject; his support for union thugs overriding the most basic of American rights and values, the secret ballot,; his support for keeping American companies from putting Americans to work unless they allow his union thug handlers to extort forced payments to the corrupt unions ; his support for stripping the Catholic Church, and, in effect, any religious organization from conforming to the rules of their religion(s); his plea for patience from the Russians, until after he is re-elected, for him to gut our missile defense; his blatant attacks on other supposedly co-equal branches of our government, in his quest to destroy a Constitution he despises,; and his forcing of Obamacare on an unwilling American populace?

I can, and will, go on.

These are just some of the issues on which Obama diametrically opposes the American voter. What is his plan? What will help him overcome the obvious obstacles between him and freedom loving patriotic Americans?

His campaign promise to cause energy rates to “necessarily skyrocket” has caused fuel prices to at least double, and his assault on the coal industry, which supplies most of our electricity, is completely out of line for someone looking out for American interests. His administration’s blatant lies and alterations to official documents led to an unwarranted moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf . We can give Brazil billions to deep-water drill, but we Americans can’t drill for our own oil.

As if that wasn’t enough to make anyone wonder how this man can expect to be re-elected, we still haven’t touched the subject of his purposeful destruction of the American capitalist system. His redistribution of wealth to the green energy scammers, mostly his friends and campaign fundraisers like Solyndra, has led to failures and bankruptcies from most of the companies to which he gave money.

It seems to me that there are a preponderance of issues President Obama supports that freedom loving Americans want no part of.

What is his plan?

Is he hoping for enough civil unrest from his personal army (SEIU, the UAW, and his foot soldiers in the Occupy movement) for him to rely on martial law and suspended elections?

What are Americans to think when the Army “accidentally” releases information regarding the treatment of freedom loving Americans pursuing happiness under the auspices and moral and ethical boundaries of the Constitution, who wind up in the Presidents re-education camps for “political activists,” and how their voices will be silenced by gags as they (WE, because I’m damn sure I’ll be there, too) are forced to do hard labor for our beliefs?

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,

How Much Does This Senator Hate The Constitution?

May 16, 2012 By 9 Comments

Dianne Feinstein SC How Much Does This Senator Hate The Constitution?

As the 2012 campaign season gets to a fever pitch, one race to watch will be California’s Senate race for the people’s seat currently held by Diane Feinstein. Currently,the top GOP candidate is Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ. Dr. Taitz had recently requested that a series of debates be scheduled with Senator Feinstein, providing that Dr. Taitz is the GOP nominee. The response from Feinstein’s campaign is simply amazing. It is loaded with pre-conditions, including banning FOX news from covering it. The  following is that e-mail from www.orlytaitzesq.com.

 

Posted on | May 14, 2012 | 97 Comments

Feinstein2012@aol.com

10:13 AM (5 hours ago)

to me

Dear Dr. Taitz,

It looks like you may end up being the California Republican nominee for Senate in the November general election. While I understand that you wanted to set up some debates before the June primary, this would have been inappropriate given the large field of candidates.

However if, as anticipated, you do become the Republican candidate, I would like to set up three debates to be televised by three major television stations. The debates would take place in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego.Our campaign would suggest evening debates at 18:00 in order to capture a higher percentage of viewers.

However, our campaign has five ground rules which we would like agreement upon before proceeding further:

(1) No questions shall be asked and no answers shall be given concerning the eligibility of President Obama or any related matters. The debate should focus on economic, social, and foreign policy issues.

 

(2) The format of the debates shall provide for a two minute response, followed by a one minute rebuttal, followed by a 30 second response.

 

(3) No notes, documents, or teleprompters shall be allowed.

 

(4) No debates shall be televised by Fox News or any affiliates thereof.

 

(5) None of your supporters shall be allowed to attend. Guests shall be limited to 100 voters chosen at random.

 

Please let me know if these ground rules would be satisfactory. Also, please let me know of nine potential dates in October during which you would be available.

 

Kind regards,

 

Sef Greene

Debate Coordinator

 

It seems very strange to me that Ms. Feinstein could demand the violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution on three seperate occasions in one e-mail. The right to free speech, the right to free press, and the right to peaceably assemble. Senator Feinstein should sit down and read the very document that she swore to uphold, defend, and protect. Senator Feinstein gives new meaning to Nancy Pelosi’s term of “draining the swamp”. I urge all Tea Party Patriots to do what you can to help Dr. Taitz take out the trash. From Obama, right on down. Stay safe, and be aware of your surroundings.

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , ,

Talk About Breaking News: New York Times Isn’t Liberal, Washington Post Not Biased

May 16, 2012 By 2 Comments

New York Times SC Talk About Breaking News: New York Times Isnt Liberal, Washington Post Not Biased

 

Recent weeks have seen ombudsmen at both the New York Times and the Washington Post defend their respective newspapers from charges of journalistic bias and a deep-seated, enduring slant to the political left. Defined as “trusted [intermediaries] between…an organization and some…external constituency,” it is the job of  New York Times ombudsman Arthur Brisbane and the Post’s Patrick Pexton to represent “the broad scope of constituent interests” by seeking to present readers with facts and straightforward, impartial reporting.

Of course, anyone with a sense of humor—or any sense at all—will get a real kick out of claims of straightforward and impartial reporting by the Times or the Post. But that is exactly what these embattled colleagues have done in their attempts to defend recent articles responsible for more than the usual show of outrage from the reading public.

On May 10th, the Post printed a story of Mitt Romney’s 1965 involvement in forcibly cutting the hair of fellow Cranbrook student John Lauber. According to the very lengthy article, Romney and a number of friends threw Lauber to the ground and submitted him to a cruel and “vicious hack job.” Of course, Lauber also turned out to be gay. A remarkable coincidence of timing considering Obama’s sudden act of “coming out” in support of gay marriage. As the Post tells it though, these things “… just happened to coincide…”

However, as PJ Media points out, “…the story directly quoted a dead man; it claimed things about him that, being dead, he is in no position to affirm or refute; it mischaracterized the opinion of one of its core witnesses; and the family of the dead man (Lauber) says the story is factually inaccurate.”

The Post’s Pexton responds to such criticism from conservative web sites and large numbers of readers with: “The Mitt Romney bullying story holds up to scrutiny,” even as he defends as quite innocent timing clearly designed to assist the President.

The New York Times’ unintentional foray into slapstick involves the newspaper’s April 21st laugher “A Hard Look at the President.” Not only has Pinch’s family publication never come close to doing what the title suggests; Ombudsman Arthur Brisbane actually hopes to reassure readers skeptical of the Time’s intentions by stating “The warm afterglow of Mr. Obama’s election, the collateral effects of liberal-minded feature writers—these can be overcome by hard-nosed, unbiased political reporting now.”

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey responds to this extraordinary statement beautifully, with “One can imagine Lucy telling Charlie Brown much the same thing right before pulling the football away for the 50th year in a row.”

It is hardly a secret that the New York Times and Washington Post literally act as willing and dutiful publicity arms of the Democrat Party and the Obama Regime. What is interesting is the sudden concern exhibited by these publications  about the way in which they are viewed by their readers. Expressed public outrage has done little to stir corporate ombudsmen from decades of smug slumber in the past. So why now? Is it possible that these important media allies of the President realize that their guy is in desperate trouble and must therefore respond to and deny any potentially harmful accusations of bias and intrigue?

It might be very instructive to see if it becomes commonplace for the media to defend its journalistic integrity over the coming months.

Photo credit: niallkennedy (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,

Why Businesses Must Fight Back

May 16, 2012 By 1 Comment
Obama Shop Going Out Of Business SC Why Businesses Must Fight Back

Sheep and chickens.

That’s what America’s greatest corporations have become.

Whether it’s in California or nationally, it’s the same sad story.

America’s best and biggest companies — the banks, the energy corporations, the computer giants — are refusing to stand up to the bully governments in Sacramento and D.C.

The men and women who run California’s corporations know that high taxes, over-spending, excessive regulations, and foolish energy policies have turned the state from one of the best states to do business into one of the worst.

But when bad law after bad law is passed in California, the corporations don’t fight back; they cower or run.

Their executives are afraid to speak up, or buy ad time, or join with those of us who are trying to reverse the death spiral of a state that’s been wrecked by four decades of Democrat misrule in Sacramento.

For example, I know that many business leaders support the “Citizen Legislature Act.” That’s the ballot initiative that, if it gets on the fall ballot, will give voters in California the chance to turn the state legislature into a part-time wrecking crew instead of a year-round one.

But many of the corporate execs in California are afraid to join the ballot initiative drive, which I chair, because they fear retaliation from Sacramento.

They have good cause to fear retaliation from the Democrats. But that’s no excuse not to fight for what they know is right. Fighting is the only way they’ll ultimately strip the Democrats of their power to retaliate.

We have the same problem nationally — a flock of corporate chickens.

Why is it that the only voices we hear fighting against Washington are talk radio and Fox News?

Where are Exxon and Apple and Ford and Wells Fargo? Why aren’t they standing up for what’s left of free enterprise in America?

Imagine if Microsoft or Verizon or even Facebook spent just a pittance of their profits to fight against those who are slowly strangling the system that made their financial success possible.

Why aren’t their CEOs pointing the finger of blame for our economic miseries where it belongs — at the Obama administration?

Why aren’t they blasting away at the liberals in Washington for their constant business bashing and attacks on the rich? They’re afraid of retaliation from Washington. But again, the solution isn’t to cower or run, it’s to fight.

Unfortunately, California’s sheepish companies would rather move to Nevada than stay and fight the Democrats in Sacramento. America’s chicken companies would rather move their operations overseas than stay and fight Washington.

It’s time corporations start standing up for themselves. Talk radio and Fox News’ 4 million viewers can’t save a bunch of sheep and chickens. No one can.

There’s a scene in the “Avengers” movie where the people are told to kneel down to show their subservience to their ruler. But one brave man stood up and said he refused to kneel any longer.

That’s what our businesses have to do if they are to survive. Get off their knees. Fight for what’s right. They’re not going to be saved by Captain America or Captain Romney or anyone else. They have to stand up and save themselves.

Michael Reagan is the son of President Ronald Reagan, a political consultant, and the author of “The New Reagan Revolution” (St. Martin’s Press, 2011). He is the founder and chairman of The Reagan Group and president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation. Visit his website at www.reagan.com.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

The Controversial Faith Of Barack Obama

May 16, 2012 By 4 Comments

Jeremiah Wright finger SC The Controversial Faith of Barack Obama

President Obama’s recent statement on gay marriage has again thrust his religious views onto the front pages. In defending his position, Obama stressed that he and his wife were “practicing Christians” and that his stance was supported by Christ’s teaching of the Golden Rule.

Since his quest to win the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois in 2004, Barack Obama’s faith has provoked controversy. In that campaign, his Republican rival Alan Keyes—a black Catholic—accused Obama of stressing his faith only “when it’s convenient to get votes.” When faith must be followed, explained, and serve as a basis for policies, Keyes protested, Obama pled the “separation of church and state”—a concept that was neither constitutional nor scriptural. “Christ would not vote for Barack Obama,” Keyes asserted, because his behavior was so contrary to that of Christ’s.

These charges prompted Obama to reassess how his faith related to his approach to politics. He concluded that his typical responses to Keyes’ criticisms—that “we live in a pluralistic society” and “I can’t impose my own religious views” on others—had been inadequate.

By 2006, Obama had decisively changed his tactics. At the Sojourners/Call to Renewal conference, he chided Democrats for refusing to talk about religious values out of fear of offending people or belief that religion had no role to play in the public arena. Ignoring “the power of faith” in the lives of Americans was “a mistake.” Obama urged Democrats to discuss “how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.”

Obama called the contention that people “should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy debates” a “practical absurdity.” American law, he argued “is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.” “Secularists are wrong,” Obama asserted, “when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.”

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama strove to win the votes of religiously-devout Americans by providing a biblical basis for his policies on poverty, healthcare, immigration, and other issues. He urged citizens to “heed the biblical call to care for ‘the least of these’”—America’s poor—by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, increasing the minimum wage, and supplying universal health insurance.

During the campaign, Obama’s relationship with Jeremiah Wright (who pastored the United Church of Christ congregation Obama had attended in Chicago for twenty years), the widespread misperception that Obama was a Muslim, and his stances on abortion and homosexual rights called attention to his religious beliefs and created controversy.

As president, Obama has frequently testified to his Christian faith, most notably at four National Prayer Breakfasts, and linked many of his policies to biblical teachings. Contrary to the wishes of many of his supporters, he has also continued George W. Bush’s Faith-based Initiatives.

Obama’s rhetoric and actions have led to conflicting claims about his presidency. John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College, recently labeled Obama perhaps the “most explicitly Christian president in American history” because of his extensive citation of the Bible and copious references to Christian faith. Fea stressed that Obama regularly read the Bible and prayed, was being mentored by evangelical pastors (most notably Joel Hunter, Kirbyjon Caldwell, and T.D. Jakes), accentuated both faith and works, urged Americans to follow God’s command to love our neighbors as ourselves, and strove to build the kingdom of God on earth.

Glenn Beck’s criticism of Fea’s op-ed on his show brought the history professor hundreds of scathing emails and elicited numerous rebuttals. The response of well-known conservative activist and author David Barton was especially caustic. Barton denounced Obama as the “Most Biblically-Hostile U.S. President.” Barton supplied dozens of examples to support his contention that Obama has engaged in acts of hostility toward people of biblical faith, violated biblical values, and given preferential treatment to Islam.

Meanwhile, in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, Mitchell Landsberg correctly observed that Obama has been both “praised—and pummeled—on matters of faith.” “Few presidents,” he added, “have spoken more often or more articulately about their religious beliefs” or been so censured by some religious groups because of their policies.

Obama has been reproached for not attending church regularly; praising Islam and the Qur’an; requiring religiously-affiliated institutions to provide coverage for contraception; and his policies on abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, and ministerial exemptions.

Because of continued confusion about his faith (45 percent of Republicans in Alabama and 51 percent in Mississippi identified him as a Muslim in recent polls), conservative charges that he is waging war against religious groups, and substantial concern that some of his policies contradict either biblical principles or long-standing American religious freedoms, Obama’s faith and religious issues are very likely to be a major issue in the 2012 presidential campaign.

Dr. Gary Scott Smith chairs the history department at Grove City College and is a fellow for faith and the presidency with The Center for Vision & Values. He is the author of “Faith and the Presidency From George Washington to George W. Bush” (Oxford University Press, 2009) and “Heaven in the American Imagination” (Oxford University Press, 2011).

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , ,

A Must-See Documentary For Christians: ‘Isaiah 9: 10 Judgment’

May 16, 2012 By 1 Comment

Christian cross SC A Must See Documentary For Christians: Isaiah 9: 10 Judgment

In 1970, even the churches were not regularly taught the doctrine of the second coming of Christ more commonly known as premillennial prophecy. Then along came Hal Lindsey’s block buster best seller, “The Late Great Planet Earth.”

The nation and the world were catapulted into a revival of knowledge that even the Prophet Daniel proclaimed would not be well known or revealed until the last days. A few great works have been added to Lindsey’s book, and those who had only Clarence Larkin’s 1918 version of “Dispensational Truth” were reinvigorated to begin again to start studying the subject of eschatology (The last things.)

Certain signs have been fulfilled in this generation that make it impossible to miss that the generation Jesus spoke of as the one sure to precede the second coming of Christ is as the Bible says, “at hand.”

Of all the latest signs and the greatest teachings and discoveries about Christ’s imminent return in power that have graced this generation, none is more specific to America than the parallel Israel and America share in the passages of Isaiah 9: 10 and following.

Since online journalism often falls prey to the speed of surfing and the new lightning speed of digital browsers, I will state both early and emphatically; the Isaiah 9:10 prophecy/parallel is, without doubt, the most important and impressive discovery in this decade. It is a wake-up call that we can only ignore at our own peril.

It was apparent from the beginning that reviewing this documentary would not be easy and that the standard review techniques would need to be suspended in lieu of some other means of elucidation. Joseph Farah (co-founder of the Western Center for Journalism) is an articulate man who in this interview manages to touch on many of the questions anyone may think to ask, but to begin, we will use the four P’s to introduce the production.

PRIMARY – In both Old and New Testament days, the Lord made it clear to his apostles and prophets and servants that if they went unheard and subsequently unheeded that it was God that was being rejected, not the servant. Under inspiration of God’s Holy Spirit, God, his message, and the messenger stand as one. That being said, the primary here is Rabbi Jonathan Cahn. Jonathan is what is known as a Messianic Rabbi (Christian), whose message is heard daily on hundreds of radio stations across the nation.

President of the ‘Hope of the World Ministries,’ Cahn is also the Senior Pastor of the ‘Jerusalem Center/ Beth Israel’ located in Wayne, New Jersey. Cahn has ministered to thousands across the globe. He is the author of the bestselling book ‘The Harbinger,’ subtitled “The Ancient Mystery that Holds the Secret of America’s Future”

In a normal review, we would hail the long list of accomplishments and roles that the principle has played to accent his career. In God’s economy, he was only looking for someone to be obedient to what they saw or heard, and in that vein, Jonathan Cahn is best described.

What was spoken of about Cahn’s ancient Father Abraham may also be said about him. Little more needs to be said for those whose pleasure it is to serve the living God. To Wit: “Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” (Gal 3: 6)

PRODUCER-Joseph Farah is the producer of the documentary “Isaiah 9: 10 Judgment“, and he is a man who hardly needs an introduction. As the founder and CEO of WND.com (Formerly World Net Daily) a website that has recently been ranked among the top 500 sites in the world (as well as the co-founder of the Western Center for Journalism), he is well known for his journalism and his untiring pursuit of the truth.

Like many Christians, Farah knows that Jesus said “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (Jn 8: 32) When Farah decided that he would not hoard the truth to himself, but make it known to the entire world, he became a servant like Jonathan Cahn. Nothing speaks more about him than that. In the perspective of the Biblical worldview, that title is the greatest he has ever been granted.

PREMISE – The documentary is used to show the parallel between ancient Israel and America. We are without a doubt producing the same behaviors that Israel did before it began to fall under the judgment of God. Since both Israel and America were chosen to represent God’s works and his message in our world, it might seem appropriate that we should both choose a similar path, but since it is a path to our own demise, it is anything but desirable.

In the last 24 hours before Christ’s life leading up to and including his crucifixion, he fulfilled some 25 major Messianic prophecies (related to the first coming of Christ) against the odds of approximately 53,000,000 to one. The parallels between Israel’s behaviors and America’s reactions to the events of 9/11 have not yet been calculated in the math of compound probabilities, but if it were, the odds would also be astronomical.

In the simplest terms, we are repeating the same behaviors as ancient Israel. The video fully explains these parallels, but much more than that, it indicates what we can do as individuals and as a nation to avoid the product of our behavior.

PRODUCT – All great portents are pretty much useless if all they do is entertain. The curiosity of the prophecies of Nostradamus, the sighting of UFOs, the pursuit of missing gospels, and ‘doomsday’ predictions all have entertainment value, but they cannot be used to edify, guide, or redeem anyone; thus, they begin and end on the lower echelon of human influence we know as entertainment.

When signs or burning bushes are granted by God, they have a much higher value. They are known as ‘revelation,’ meaning that they are God’s way of speaking to man. God doesn’t just want to be heard like someone shouting over the crowd; He has no opinions or viewpoints. He is the author and finisher of all things, but He does want to make it clear that we play a role in the outcome of all that happens in our lives as individuals and collectively as a nation. This, then, is the very heart of this documentary. It is a view of the terrible event we call 9/11 that when seen correctly will serve to awaken us to our role, subsequent to that event.

It is God’s way of saying  ‘Now, what are you going to do about it!’

Everybody who watches this video will be impacted. Whether you are just curious about prophecies and how America fits into the biblical scheme of things, or if you are a solid student of prophecy, you will be moved and enlightened and challenged by the obviously important message Jonathan Cahn is making in this powerful video presentation.

As a person with both a prophetic calling on my life and as a journalist, I feel that our nation is sliding fast toward the place of no return; anything that serves to alert the nation to this misguided race to our own demise rates high on my list as important enough to declare and make known to other Americans.

I like to rate every film or production I review on a scale of 1 to 10. In all three categories, message, production, and prophetic value, I would be remiss if I did not give Joseph Farah’s production of ‘Isaiah 9: 10 Judgment,’ a very strong – ten.

Good Watching.

To buy ‘Isaish 9:10 Judgment’, click here.

http://www.americanprophet.org has since 2005 featured the articles of columnist Rev Michael Bresciani along with news and reviews that have earned this site the title of The Website for Insight. Millions have read his timely reports and articles in online journals and print publications across the nation and the globe.

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

Will Obama Attempt To Declare Martial Law Before November Election?

May 15, 2012 By 97 Comments

Obama Official Portrait SC 752x1024 Will Obama attempt to declare martial law before November election?

Canada Free Press contributor Doug Hagmann has reported that a longtime friend and Department of Homeland Security official revealed to him “…the uppermost echelon of the DHS is actively preparing for massive social unrest inside the United States,” and not only “…expecting and preparing for it, they are actually facilitating it.”

According to Hagmann’s DHS source, the Obama Regime—which initiates Department agenda and dominates its thinking—will proceed by implementing “economic chaos, chaos through racial division and chaos through class division, all joined by Barack Hussein Obama and his stable of unelected czars.”

For three years, the Administration has worked to destroy the private sector and destabilize the value of the dollar. It has injected race and class into every argument, setting the stage for “summer riots” organized by Regime operatives. And when economic calamity and civil unrest are at their zenith, “…a false flag event against Obama or his family, something that will outrage ‘black America’ ” will be crafted, its purpose, to “…evoke the ugliest of reactions and create racial chaos in this country that will make the Watts riots, 1968 and the Rodney King riots pale in comparison.”

At this juncture, the federal government will be “forced” to take a hand for the well-being of the nation and the American public, of course. Martial law will be declared by an appropriately “reluctant” Barack Obama, who will offer a television persona clearly dis-inclined to the exercise of such staggering authority. Naturally, he will promise the duration of his absolute power to be brief and its use, strictly and fairly measured.  The 2012 election will–for the purposes of fairness and equity—be indefinitely postponed.

Although claims in the Canada Free Press article sound very much like the ravings of “tin foil hat”-wearing conspiracy theorists, it should be remembered who the enemy is, the extraordinary sweep and authority they have already attained, and the arrogance and lust for power that drives them.

These are people brazen and lawless enough to have placed a Manchurian Candidate in the White House. From politicians to journalists to judges, they have threatened into silence or collaboration any with the slightest inclination or ability to stand in their way. They have near-total ownership of the national media, a vitally important accomplishment in any plan to overthrow a government. They have absolute authority over the executive branch, giving them the ability to not only implement (or ignore) law and enforce it, but also the means and power to punish those who stand in their way. For only the executive has the ability to enforce its will as it is the only branch of government with armed troops and therefore the power of arrest and detention.

In short, nothing can be put past this group and, as a result, little can be considered too far from the realm of possibility.

It’s true that Americans are the most widely armed people in the world. But consider the indignities we have already endured and the way in which we have meekly surrendered liberty in the past. Why should anyone expect sudden bravery from a public that has exhibited little but sheepish submission over the past 5 decades?

Conspiracy theories or not, it will be a very interesting and potentially very dangerous campaign season.

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

Is Unity With Romney Possible?

May 15, 2012 By 12 Comments
Mitt Romney with supporters 2 SC Is Unity With Romney Possible?

Sitting on the floor of the Arizona Republican convention, we have a sick feeling in our stomachs. Everyone in this room wants to defeat Barack Obama, but divisions are deep, and much work needs to be done to heal the wounds.

Early in the day, we heard a series of speeches from Arizona and GOP luminaries. Despite being united in purpose, the catcalls, boos, and jeers are easily heard over the tepid applause.

Mitt Romney’s third son, Josh, took the podium and offered inevitability. He said, “my Dad realized he would be the next president the Rick Santorum called him to say he was suspending his campaign.” He acknowledged the other candidates, and when he offered kind words about Ron Paul, the room erupted in cheers.

Next up, the Ron Paul campaign appointed a local GOP leader named Sydney Hay to speak. She talked about the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. She seemed to understand Paul’s underdog status, but the Paul supporters cheered her wildly.

The Romney supporters were much more polite; they didn’t jeer the way the Paul crowd jeered Romney supporters.

Listening to the cheers and jeers, the energy in this hall is with Paul, but the majority of delegates are clearly with Romney.

So why is there less energy for the front-runner and presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney?

We decided to ask some of the delegates why. Here is what we heard from the respective campaigns’ delegates:

“Ron Paul wants to follow the US Constitution; Mitt Romney supports the unconstitutional bailouts of the banks.”

“Mitt Romney is the most qualified, he has run businesses, he has run the the Olympics, and he can run the government.”

“Ron Paul is against NDAA, the bill which allows for the arrest and imprisonment of Americans without trial, and Mitt Romney supports the NDAA.”

“Mitt Romney will enforce our immigration laws; Ron Paul will let people cross the border.”

“Ron Paul is a Christian, and Mitt Romney isn’t.”

“Mitt Romney can win, and we will appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court.”

Romney garnered 47 percent of the votes in Arizona’s primary, and Ron Paul only received 8 percent, but because of this enthusiasm gap, the Paul supporters are making the delegate campaigns a close race.

Our own belief is that if Romney wants to run away with this race, he should not be moving to the middle so quickly.

When Barack Obama endorsed homosexual marriage this week, Romney responded by affirming traditional marriage, but then he undercut his own message by endorsing homosexual adoption. This type of “splitting the baby” approach to issues is alienating the conservative GOP base he needs to work hard for his campaign.

Romney will never get the homosexual vote, so why try to placate them by endorsing adoption into untraditional families?

Mitt Romney needs to sound a clear message and not fear the media. He needs to stand on conservative principle.

In this regard, he could learn much from Ron Paul. He would do well to choose Senator Rand Paul, Ron’s son, as his running mate this fall. It would show that he hears the voices of those yearning for a candidate that stands firmly by the US Constitution, and it just might bring some enthusiasm to his campaign.

Photo Credit : Gage Skidmore Creative Commons

 

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Why Obama Won’t Be Able To Hide Behind The 10th Amendment On Gay “Marriage”

May 15, 2012 By 5 Comments

constitution 2 SC Why Obama won’t be able to hide behind the 10th Amendment on Gay “Marriage”

One hundred and sixty years ago, Democrats picked up guns and attempted to violently overthrow our government in the name of “States’ Rights.” They LOVED the 10th Amendment then because it suited their aim of keeping black people in chains. More recently, they have HATED the 10th Amendment that says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” when it has been cited by conservatives as grounds for various states to allow their citizens to refuse to be forced to buy individual health care insurance policies.

They HATE the 10th Amendment when Southern States argued that abortion should and could be prohibited within their borders because it is the right of a state to determine whether it will allow or prohibit abortions.

Now they LOVE the 10th Amendment because they see it as a way to run away from being forced to take a position on the question of support for gay “marriage.” “It should be up to the states,” says today’s crop of phony Democrats.

When Barack Obama made his quickly-thrown-together announcement declaring himself in favor of gay “marriage” he effectively ended any chance of reelection he might have had. His disingenuous support for states to decide the issue for themselves swung the Democrat weather vane back to LOVE for the 10thAmendment as evident from statements issued by Democrats up for reelection.

How the issue is playing

Despite liberal media talk about how “brave” Obama was to come out for gay “marriage,” the truth is that his announcement was a gift to those who want him and his Party defeated in November.

While Obama has improved to just a – 4 points against his Republican opponent – as per Rasmussen – once the issue settles in, it promises to be a deal breaker for many voters. A Gallup poll released Friday held that by a count of 26% to 13%, voters say they are less likely to vote for Obama – and by extension Democrats in general.

A 13% swing is huge – let no one say otherwise.

A net minus 13 points is a lethal number.

Hiding behind the 10th Amendment on gay “marriage” won’t help Obama get his foot out of this bucket no matter what the media says.

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,

Time To Declare A War On Liberal Stupidity

May 15, 2012 By 6 Comments

Time to Declare a War on Liberal Stupidity

America is not the “social issue fixer-upper in disrepair” Progressives make her out to be. Instead, America is the “world’s last great hope” and will continue to be, just as soon as we are able to get our head above the water economically.

The wave upon wave of “wars” on race, women, class, and now gay marriage  were devised to sink this magnificent “city on a shining hill” into the depths of the sea and replace her with a European-style socialistic utopian theme park I affectionately call “Progressive World.”

Progressives, there is a much simpler way to get to that happy place filled with e-ticket rides and no work: Hop on a plane to Greece and send us a postcard to let us know how it’s working out for you.

God bless them; it seems Progressives honestly thought the sun, moon, and planets had lined up just for them that magical Greek column-themed Inauguration night in 2009 when Democrats owned Washington.

President Obama and Democrats had two years to do something about gay marriage if they wanted to. Instead, the president waited to make his “public service announcement” until now. Obama made no promises; he simply stated his opinion. The shrewd politician he is, Obama understood the power of words and threw out a few to rally his base and raise Hollywood big-dollar campaign donations — which goes to show you that intelligence is not a prerequisite for fame.

Rally, he did; within days, Newsweek canonized Obama as America’s “First Gay President” and plastered his face on their front page, rainbow flag colored halo and all. I shall bite my tongue here for further comment and leave the editorializing to readers.

Especially during these days of pending economic ruin, the “war” on gay marriage is a waste of time. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that as long as gays stay within the same legal boundaries we are all bound to, they can do whatever they want behind closed doors. It’s their business. I’m sure the GOP would be happy to accommodate them with reasonable things like hospital visitation rights. Sexual activity is between an individual, God, and the fly on the wall and has nothing to do with civil rights.

Conservatives must sit this one out and let nature take its course. If liberal men marry men and liberal women marry women and those who want to abort their babies do so, it won’t be long before liberals will “social right” themselves out of existence. In this case, patience is a virtue conservatives should wholeheartedly embrace.

Meanwhile, our ship is sinking, and Democrats are dressing themselves for dinner.

Focusing on non-issues intended to pit Americans against each other rather than acknowledging the iceberg we’re about to crash into was an exercise in futility. How far this one, who once promised to bind us together, has fallen.

It truly is “still about the economy, stupid.” Maybe someone needs to declare a war on “stupid.”

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,