Obama’s Occidental College transcripts provides concrete evidence to annul his presidency.

Registration transcript states
Name: Barry Soetoro - Religion: Islam - Nationality: Indonesian

The smoking gun evidence that annuls Obama’s presidency is Obama’s college transcripts regarding his application for and receiving of foreign student aid.  Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript from Occidental College shows that Obama (Barry Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship (scholarship) for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program – an international educational exchange program sponsored by the U.S. government.  Grants are available for U.S. citizens to go abroad and for non-U.S. citizens with no U.S. permanent residence to come to the U.S.

To qualify, for the non-US citizen scholarship to study in the U.S., a student applicant must claim and provide proof of foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.  The United States Constitution requires that Presidents (and Vice Presidents) of the United States be natural born citizens of the United States.

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

Obama hasn’t met and doesn’t meet the basic qualifications for the presidency – must be natural born citizen.

Obama has been named in dozens of civil lawsuits alleging he is not eligible to be president, with many filing a criminal complaint alleging the commander-in-chief is a fraud.

The filed indictments disputes Obama’s eligibility to be president under the U.S. Constitution which requires that eligible candidates for the United States presidency be “natural born” citizens.
U.S. soldiers including a general refuse to recognize Obama as their Commander in Chief since he is not a U.S. citizen. The soldiers have challenged Obama’s legitimacy by filing federal lawsuits against Obama.

On such soldier was U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook who was given orders to deploy to Afghanistan. Cook refused to deploy stating that he shouldn’t have to go because Obama is not a U.S. citizen and therefore not legally President and Commander in Chief.  The military revoked the orders with no reason given.  Speculation is that Obama would rather not see this thing go to court before a judge!

“In the 20-page document — filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia — the California-based Taitz asks the court to consider granting his client’s request based upon Cook’s belief that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces,” the Ledger-Enquirer reported.

Cook “would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President’s command. … simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties,” Taitz stated.

Obama says he was born in Hawaii in 1961, just two years after it became a state.

There are many lawsuits and claims that Barack Obama was never eligible to be president because he wasn’t born in the United States. And there is credible evidence that suggests he is not legally eligible to serve as President of the United States.

Numerous official government documents records Obama being legally registered as Barry Soetoro. School registries shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro. During his Occidental College days he is registered as Barry Soetoro. An entry in the journal of the California assembly in reference to grants given to foreign exchange students (this official government document lists Obama as a foreigner not a US citizen. A US citizen wouldn’t qualify for foreign exchange student funding) states Obama as Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.

The first name of a child is always the same from birth. If throughout his childhood Obama went by the first name of Barry then legally his birth name would have to be Barry. In order to register any child for school an official birth certificate must be presented. To receive a government grant proof of citizenship and birth must also be submitted. All of the evidence is stating that Barack Obama’s legal first name is Barry not Barrack.

A biography of Obama’s Occidental College days states that when Obama was 18-19 he attended school as BARRY SOETORO. And it wasn’t until he met a girl by the name of Regina that Obama started using the name Barack.  Regina was the first to start calling him Barack.  There seems to be no record of Obama legally changing his first name from Barry to Barack.

While being sworn in as an attorney in the State of Illinois, Mr Obama had to provide his personal information under oath. He was asked, if he had any other names, he responded none. In reality, he used the name Barry Soetoro in an entry in the journal of the California assembly in reference to grants given to foreign exchange students. Mr. Soetoro/Obama clearly defrauded the State Bar of Illinois and perjured himself while concealing his identity. Anybody else would’ve been disbarred for this and the matter would’ve been forwarded to the district attorney for prosecution for perjury and fraud, however nothing was done to Mr. Obama. More importantly, why did he conceal his identity?

If Obama didn’t legally have his name changed from Barry to Barack then the birth certificate he passed to Congress is a fake, a forgery.  If his name was registered as Barry Soetoro even though Obama claims his real name is Barack Obama then Obama defrauded the state of California in order to receive college funding.  Obama knowingly presented a false document to the state wherein he claimed to be a foreign student in order to illegally acquire financial aid.
U.S. Code

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47—FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

§ 1015. Naturalization, citizenship or alien registry

(a) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement under oath, in any case, proceeding, or matter relating to, or under, or by virtue of any law of the United States relating to naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or

(b) Whoever knowingly, with intent to avoid any duty or liability imposed or required by law, denies that he has been naturalized or admitted to be a citizen, after having been so naturalized or admitted; or

(c) Whoever uses or attempts to use any certificate of arrival, declaration of intention, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other documentary evidence of naturalization or of citizenship, or any duplicate or copy thereof, knowing the same to have been procured by fraud or false evidence or without required appearance or hearing of the applicant in court or otherwise unlawfully obtained; or

(d) Whoever knowingly makes any false certificate, acknowledgment or statement concerning the appearance before him or the taking of an oath or affirmation or the signature, attestation or execution by any person with respect to any application, declaration, petition, affidavit, deposition, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other paper or writing required or authorized by the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or

(e) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is, or at any time has been, a citizen or national of the United States, with the intent to obtain on behalf of himself, or any other person, any Federal or State benefit or service, or to engage unlawfully in employment in the United States; or

(f) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is a citizen of the United States in order to register to vote or to vote in any Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum)—

This evidence is sufficient to annul the presidency of Obama.   Official Occidental College transcripts registered with the state declares that Obama is an impostor.

The original Article on Press Core

Common Sense Commentary:

Barry Sotoro claims he was Indonesian 

and he claimed his religion was Islam!

If this is true and supportable, it is the earthquake that leads to a great tsunami.

But, will our government be able to process this, or will it ignore the information and its grave ramifications.

The American government is loath to dispose of its presidents. Remember, Nixon had to resign. But, will Obama resign? I don't think so.

The Republican Congress will be willing and able to file Articles of Impeachment. But, then the Senate takes over and Democrats have a majority.  So, impeachment might not go anywhere, or if it does, it probably will not result in Obama leaving office. 

We should each take a moment and pray for our nation and it's deliverance from its current treasonous Administration!

Blessings!

Is It Incompetence or Ideology?

Is It Incompetence or Ideology? 

Charles Krauthammer

June 10, 2011 12:00 A.M.  

Should Republicans run against Obama’s hyper-liberalism or his abysmal economic stewardship?

The Republicans swept November’s midterm election by making it highly ideological, a referendum on two years of hyper-liberalism — of arrogant, overreaching, intrusive government drowning in debt and running deficits of $1.5 trillion annually. It’s not complicated. To govern from the left in a center-right country where four out of five citizens are non-liberal is a prescription for electoral defeat.

Which suggested an obvious Republican strategy for 2012: Recapitulate 2010. Keep it ideological.
Choose a presidential nominee who can best make the case.

But in the last few weeks, the landscape has changed. For two reasons: NY-26 and the May economic numbers.

Last month, Democrats turned the race for the 26th congressional district of New York into a referendum on Medicare, and more specifically on the Paul Ryan plan for reforming it. The Republicans lost the seat — after having held it for more than four decades.

Problem was, their candidate was weak, defensive, unschooled, and unskilled in dealing with the issue. Republicans have a year to cure that. If they can train their candidates to be just half as fluent as Ryan in defending their Medicare plan, they would be able to neutralize the issue.

But that in and of itself is a tactical victory for Democrats. Republicans are on the defensive. Democratic cynicism has worked. By deciding to do nothing about debt and entitlements, and instead to simply accuse Republicans of tossing granny off a cliff, they have given themselves an issue.

And more than just an issue. It gives President Obama the perfect opportunity to reposition himself to the center. After his midterm shellacking, he began the (ostensible) move: appointing moderates such as William Daley to high White House positions; making pro-business, anti-regulatory noises; even offering last month a token relaxation of his hard line against oil drilling.

Ostentatious but not very convincing. Now, however, the Obama pitch is stronger: Leftist? On the contrary, I bestride the center like a colossus, protecting Medicare from Republican right-wing social engineering.

It’s not that the ideological case against Obama cannot be made. Obamacare with its individual mandate remains unpopular. The near-trillion-dollar stimulus remains an albatross. Even the failed attempt at cap-and-trade — government control of energy pricing — shows Obama’s determination to fundamentally transform America. And he is sure to try again to complete his coveted European-style social-democratic project if you give him four more years.

Medicare has nonetheless partially blunted that line of ideological attack. Yet, just as the Democrats were rejoicing in the fruits of their cynicism, in came the latest economic numbers. They were awful. Housing-price declines were the worst since the 1930s. Unemployment rising again.

Underemployment disastrously high. And as for chronic unemployment, the average time for finding a new job is now 40 weeks, the highest ever recorded. These numbers gravely undermine Obama’s story line that we’re in a recovery, just a bit slow and bumpy.

Suddenly, the election theme has changed. The Republican line in 2010 was: He’s a leftist. Now it is: He’s a failure. The issue is shifting from ideology to stewardship.

As in 1992, it’s the economy, with everything else a distant second. The economic numbers explain why Obama’s job approval has fallen, why the bin Laden bump disappeared so quickly, and why Mitt Romney is running even with the president. Romney is the candidate least able to carry the ideological attack against Obama — exhibit A of Obama’s hyper-liberalism is Obamacare, and Romney cannot rid himself of the similar plan he gave Massachusetts. But when it comes to being solid on economics, competent in business, and highly experienced in governance, Romney is the prohibitive front-runner.

The changing nature of the campaign is also a boost for Tim Pawlenty, the successful two-term governor of a very liberal state, and possibly for another ex-governor, Jon Huntsman, depending on who he decides to run as.

Nonetheless, despite the changed conditions, I would still prefer to see the Republican challenger make 2012 a decisive choice between two distinct visions of government. We are in the midst of a once-in-a-generation debate about the nature of the welfare state (entitlement versus safety net) and, indeed, of the social contract between citizen and state (e.g., whether Congress can mandate — compel — you to purchase whatever it wills). Let’s finish that debate. Start with Obama’s abysmal stewardship, root it in his out-of-touch social-democratic ideology, and win. That would create the strongest mandate for conservative governance since the Reagan era.

 Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. 

© 2011 the Washington Post Writers Group.

 Common Sense Commentary:

 Charles is correct, we Patriots need to demonstrate Obama's utter failures, which are self-evident, then link those failures to his contemptuous anti-American ideology, thus crating a vice he cannot escape without attacking his own foundational positions and actions.

Blessings!

What Happened to America and Its Constitution?

More Common Sense by Silence  Dogood!

A Democrat's Take on Fox News

By Douglas E. Schoen

Published June 02, 2011 | FoxNews.com

There have been two magazine pieces recently about Fox News that have made the argument that the News Channel is devoted primarily, if not entirely, to promoting Republican candidates and Republican talking points. And as a Fox News Democrat it struck me that there is a lot more to the story.

I've worked for Fox for seven years and during that period I can honestly say that there's never been an effort, organized or otherwise, to get me or to my knowledge anyone else to advance a particular point of view. More generally virtually every producer I've dealt with has sought to have different points of emphasis in commentaries and debates made so that viewers would get more than a uni-dimensional or narrow perspective.

To the extent that I've talked with Fox News Channel Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes and Bill Shine, Executive Vice President, Programming about recruiting more Democrats, it is my considered opinion that they have sought the highest quality Democrats to complement an unrivaled roster of Republicans.

Indeed as I think about it going back over the last 35 years of American political history Fox has represented among its contributors individuals who have played a significant role at the highest levels of American politics in presidential campaign after presidential campaign.

The pollsters and among the chief political advisers for the last two Democratic presidents, myself and Patrick Caddell are both Fox News contributors and active participants in providing commentary both individually and collectively on the Web and on Fox News Channel.

Caddell represents Fox's coverage of the '76 and '80 Carter campaigns. Bob Beckel, who served as campaign manager for Walter Mondale was and is a preeminent Fox News contributor with a regular spot on “Hannity” as well as high visibility during daytime programming.

Beckel is a mainstream liberal, while Caddell and I tend to be more moderate, but I've never heard anyone seek to draw a distinction between us based on either ideology or party.

For 1988 Fox has Susan Estrich who is somewhere between Beckel and Caddell and myself ideologically and is the first woman to run a national presidential campaign (which she did for former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis). Susan is among America's top lawyers, a law professor and a now preeminent litigator.

I would probably best represent the Clinton years and there have been a number of contributors representing the period since 2000, most notably Howard Wolfson, a strongly partisan Democrat who had a very prominent role on Fox News until he decided to join Mayor Mike Bloomberg's team as a deputy mayor.

Fox has also recruited Joe Trippi, the architect of Howard Dean's 2004 insurgency and the man most responsible for recognizing how the Internet can transform politics. Trippi also was Jerry Brown's key strategist in 2010 in his successful campaign against Meg Whitman for governor of California.

My own sense is that Fox does well not because Roger Ailes has tried to turn it into a vehicle for political advocacy, but because of the superiority of the anchors and talent and most notably the distinctiveness of the programming.

Fox News hits a chord that neither of the other two news channels appears to hit and has extremely competent personnel.

Beyond that I know first hand from discussions that there's an ongoing effort at Fox News to get more high quality Democrats to join the roster, and I couldn't have been more pleased when my former client and friend Evan Bayh joined.

I was also disappointed in another fellow Democrat, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.  After a flirtation with Fox News and a stated public approval of Fox's role in the 2008 election, Rendell went to MSNBC -- apparently to make more money all the while suddenly now becoming a Fox News detractor.

The message I've always gotten from the top of Fox News is get more Democrats, get better Democrats, get people who will speak their mind.

I'm a little amazed when I read magazine articles about the cable channel because the Fox News I work for and contribute to is the not the Fox News I read about.

I'm not naïve, I understand that the point of view presented is not that of the left, but its also not that of the Republican National Committee. Fox News takes whacks at Republicans and did so with great frequency during the last couple of years of the Bush administration.

The conclusion I reach is that the elite media continues to be befuddled by the success that Fox News enjoys in the ratings month after month, year after year. And the only way they can explain it is by ascribing it to some plot or plan or scheme. It’s neither. Its just good television organized by smart executives, whose political perspective may not be my own, but whose commitment to professionalism and excellence appears clear and unambiguous.

Douglas E. Schoen is a political strategist and Fox News contributor. His most recent book is "Mad as Hell: How the Tea Party Movement is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System" published by Harper, an imprint of HarperCollins.

Read more: Click HERE

Common Sense Commentary:

We all hear the liberal moans and groans attacking Fox for its hard work, and honesty.... two things to liberals that are like Holy Water and a Cross to a Vampire.

I wrote a Commentary reviewing the viewership statistics of the 3 main Cable News Channels (Fox, MSNBC, CNN) and those results similarly demonstrate Fox is the only minimally biased news channel and actually has more Democratic viewers than both MSNBC and CNN combined,

Digging Deeper on Cable News Partisanship 

If you ever discuss Fox, or other news reporting issues with a liberal, you might want these tools in your back pocket especially if you enjoy eviscerating hateful idiots.

As always be patient and kind in discussing facts with an Independent. They are winnable votes for saving America's future!

2012!

Blessings!

Pressure Increases on Senate Dems for Debt Deal - Phoenix Americanus

Pressure Increases on Senate Dems for Debt Deal

By Chris Stirewalt

Published May 18, 2011 | FoxNews.com

Senate Can’t Wait for Superman
"I'm giving it a rest, because we're at an impasse. We have to accomplish certain things if we're going to get a deal, and we're just not where we can meet the demands of what I think we have to have to fix our problems."

-- Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., talking to FOX News colleague Trish Turner about the Gang of Six.
The halt to the high-stakes bipartisan debt talks by the Senate Gang of Six may be the key to moving forward on President Obama’s request to increase the government’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.

With Sen. Tom Coburn leaving the table over an impasse surrounding Medicare, Senate Democrats can no longer hold out hope for a grand bipartisan bargain before Aug. 4, when a partial government shutdown would commence.

As long as the Gang was at work, Senate Democrats could be excused for stalling saying that they hoped for a big deal to solve the problem in the long term.

Now, President Obama, Majority Leader Harry Reid and the rest of the Senate Democratic caucus must begin in earnest the unhappy work of putting together a small-bore deal to win the support of 60 Senators – including at least seven Republicans.

Read more:     Fox News

Also, read my previous analysis of "Phoenix Americanus" (Restored America) that discussed the previous Budget Deal and why it was a good move (because it led to this successful strategic position in our long war to restore America!

Osama Bin Ladin Dead!

Osama Bin Ladin Dead!

Osama bin Laden, #1 on America's most wanted list and one of the greatest threats to our country, people constitution, is now dead. Please LIKE this post in support of all the heroic men and women who have played a part in achieving justice and defending the USA!

And, please give Prayers and Blessings to all those who lost loved ones on 9/11, and especially to those families who lost heroic loved ones, who died for America, and the American People!

Protect Children Against Repeat Sex Offenders

Philly-Based National Group Fighting Against TSA Pat Downs on Children

Apr 20, 2011 by Randy LoBasso

WeWontFly.com, a national organization opposed to enhanced airport searches, put out a press release this morning calling for a blanket end to pat downs on children.

“The goal of the campaign is to highlight the immorality of TSA [Transportation Security Administration] pat-downs of minors, force the TSA to immediately and permanently halt all touching of minors and encourage travel industry players to join us,” reads the release, which can be viewed on the front page of WeWontFly.com, created in October 2010 by James Babb and George Donnelly.

We caught up with co-founder Babb, who lives in Eagleville and had previously helped put together “National Opt-Out Day” on Thanksgiving Eve 2010, organizing resistance at Philadelphia International (and elsewhere), right in the middle of the expansion of news coverage (and Drudge Sirens!) on the issue, which got people up in a real tussle.

Babb says the efforts to stop TSA searches remains the overarching goal of the group and others like it throughout the country, though says after watching a recent viral video of 6-year-old Anna Drexel getting what he calls “fondled” by airport security, they needed to act.

“Minors are particularly vulnerable,” says Babb. “You and I as adults can say ‘I won’t fly.’ We can choose whether we want them fondling us or irradiating us [with airport body scanners]. Children don’t have that ability.”
He says there should be a zero-tolerance policy of “abusing children in this way” and has called on supporters of WeWontFly.com – including 19,635 Facebook followers, as of the time of this blog – to begin a nationwide “Call Flood” campaign alongside efforts to collect signatures to send to the Obama Administration and TSA officials. The idea is to call huge companies the country over, like airlines and Disney destinations and say that until the companies put pressure on congress to get this stopped, their patronizing will cease.

6 year old girl sexually accosted by TSA

“The Disney Corporation, their own mission statement says protecting children is a priority,” he says. “And the fact that kids are being subjected to this assault on their way to Disney World or Disney Land or a Disney cruise, it’s just horrifying.”

The rationale for searching children is that terrorists may be disguised and be able to use anyone, including children, to get weapons on planes. Babb doesn’t buy it.

“People say there’s this big danger of terrorism,” he says. “The actual danger is so small. You’re eight times more likely to be murdered by a policeman than a terrorist. You’re four times more likely to die in your bathtub than by a terrorist. It’s not a substantial threat at all.”

Babb maintains techniques, such as scanners and pat downs not only don’t make us any safer, but make us less safe. In fact, it’s been reported the body scanners wouldn’t have detected the type of powdered explosives used by the “underwear bomber.” WeWontFly.com maintains alerted passengers, in fact, have a better track record of fighting terrorism – the underwear bomber, shoe bomber, Flight 93 on 9/11 – than do TSA scanners and pat down techniques.

“To say, ‘Look, we’re going to let our guard down if we stop putting our hands in kids’ pants is total bullshit,” muses Babb. “They’re not protecting anybody anyway.”

Link to Phillly-Blog

Common Sense Commentary:

 

TSA actions clearly violate the Fourth Amendment unless travelers clearly, knowingly, and willingly surrender their Rights via written, signed, contract with full understanding.

We only have to look to 50 year of SCOTUS Miranda Rights rulings to know that each of the above elements must be clearly, and willingly be met in order for an American Citizen to surrender their inherent GOD GIVEN Rights.

 

There is no question that should any of us citizens, be caught touching these children, in this way, we would be convicted in court as SEX OFFENDERS, and sentenced to STATUTORY SENTENCES and have to Register as Sex Offenders for life, IF we were to ever leave jail.

Bill of Rights

Fourth Amendment

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 

Child sexual abuse - wikipedia

6 year old boy strip searched by TSA

Sexual assaults on children are normally viewed far more seriously than those on an adult. This is because of the innocence of the child victim, and also because of the long-term psychological impact that such assaults have on the child.

Child sexual abuse (CSA) is a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent abuses a child for sexual stimulation. Forms of CSA include asking or pressuring a child to engage in sexual activities (regardless of the outcome), indecent exposure of the genitals to a child,pornography to a child, actual sexual contact against a child, physical contact with the child's genitals, viewing of the child's genitalia without physical contact, or...

Blessings to all PATRIOTS!

New York Times Hammers Obama

All the President's Sanctimony 
Ross Douhat
New York Times, Op Ed

Here is how President Obama introduced his plan for deficit reduction in Wednesday’s speech:

… because all this spending is popular with both Republicans and Democrats alike, and because nobody wants to pay higher taxes, politicians are often eager to feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse. You’ll hear that phrase a lot. “We just need to eliminate waste and abuse.” The implication is that tackling the deficit issue won’t require tough choices.

… So here’s the truth. Around two-thirds of our budget — two-thirds — is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security. Two-thirds.

…. So any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table …

And here are some choice excerpts from the plan itself:

It’s an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table — but one that protects the middle class, our promise to seniors, and our investments in the future …

We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments. We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare’s purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market. We will work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid … we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services that seniors need …

… both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we have to do it without putting at risk current retirees, or the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.

So, to be clear: We need to put “everything on the table” … except for policies that benefit the middle class and senior citizens. We can’t pretend that we can close the budget deficit by just cutting waste, fraud and abuse … but we can pretend that reining in Medicaid and Medicare spending is just a matter of cutting “wasteful subsidies” and “erroneous payments,” finding “efficiencies” and eliminating “unnecessary care.” We need to make “tough choices” and (did I mention this?) put “everything on the table” … but we can’t change Social Security benefits for current or future retirees.

This was what bothered me the most about the president’s speech. It wasn’t the partisanship and polemicism. Politics ain’t beanbag: President Obama wants to be re-elected, the House Republicans gave him a nice fat target, and I wasn’t surprised that he decided to come out swinging rather than letting the opportunity pass by. Nor was it his refusal to match Paul Ryan’s honesty about what it takes to balance the budget without tax increases with a similar honesty about what it takes to balance the budget while leaving Medicare and Social Security more or less as-is. Evading unpleasant realities is a grand bipartisan tradition: Someday, a Democratic leader will have to admit that he supports tax increases on the middle class, but I’m not at all shocked that President Obama still hopes to save that admission for his second term — or the first term of Joe Biden’s administration, perhaps.

No, it was the sanctimony that got to me. If you’re going to propose reforming entitlements by primarily cutting “wasteful subsidies” and “unnecessary care,” is it really appropriate to shake your finger at politicians who propose to cut “waste, fraud and abuse”? If you’re intent on pretending that tax increases on the rich are the only tax increases required, is it really appropriate to lecture your audience about the need to make “tough choices” and put “everything on the table”? This is a recurring tic in President Obama’s speeches, of course: He likes to frame his partisan thrusts with professorial summaries of the policy landscape, alternating between honest high-mindedness and slash-and-burn polemics. But Wednesday’s address was a particularly frustrating variation on that theme. Rarely has a politician talked so piously (and accurately) about the necessity of hard choices while proposing to make so few of them.

In a sense, I know, even a gesture toward inconvenient realities is better than no gesture at all. It’s the tribute that big-government liberalism pays to fiscal reality, you might say, and it’s a sign of the growing constraints on the progressive vision that President Obama felt compelled to acknowledge that reality at all. (Matt Yglesias and Yuval Levin, from the left and right, made versions of his point following the speech.)

But the sanctimony is still hard to swallow. This president doesn’t pander any more egregiously than his predecessors. But he spends more time trying to pretend that his pandering is really tough-minded, post-partisan truthtelling. And that two-step grows more grating with every passing day.

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/all-the-presidents-sanctimony/

Common Sense Commentary:

When you have lost the New York Times, you are no longer relevant in liberal circles. 

Obama has lost his POTUS Bully Pulpit, which is the most powerful speaking position in the world. He now has to reel in the New York Times and many others in order to win the primaries and be re-elected. 

Of course, he will get them back. But at extreme costs. And, at this moment a seated president is now standing outside the White House and has to fight his way back in.

If we Patriots keep our heads down, focus on the larger war, and stay away from fundamental internal arguments over nuanced policies, we will have a new president in 2012, and he will be a Republican. We must choose wisely!

Blessings, fellow Patriots!

Tea Time

Tea Time

Posted By Roger Kimball On April 3, 2011 @ 2:05 pm In Uncategorized | 16 Comments

Yes, it’s getting to be that time again.  During the run-up to the November 2010 elections, many observers — including me ^[1] — remarked that the tea party, which was clearly shaping up to be a major power in many states, was not so much anti-Democrat or even anti-incumbent as it  was anti-business-as-usual.  The tea partiers were united not by demographics — age, profession, education, geography, etc. — but by impatience at the sclerotic inefficiency and blundering intrusiveness of a government establishment that had lost touch with the American founding principles of limited government, fiscal accountability, and republican virtue.

Perhaps the most conspicuous targets of the tea party were high-profile Democrats like Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer, but plenty of Republican politicians also learned to their chagrin that they could no longer treat their office as a perpetual entitlement or the American taxpayer as an inexhaustible mammary gland. As was repeatedly noted in the aftermath of the election, while the tea party lost a handful of high-profile races (Nevada, California, Delaware), the spirit of reform rushed like the waters of the Alpheus and Peneus through the Augean stables of state and local legislatures. Commentary is not prophecy; nevertheless, I predict a reappearance of those cleansing waters come 2012. How thorough a job they will do depends, of course, on the people directing the flow.  A key question is exactly who will be standing in for Heracles on  the Republican side of the ledger.

We’ll know that soon enough. For now, it’s perhaps worth underscoring that anti-business-as-usual, a-pox-on-both-your-houses theme.  In the 2010 election, the primary focus was on domestic issues: the economy, ObamaCare, the economy, immigration, the economy, gun rights, the economy, the economy, the economy.

Domestic issues are still front and center. But the embarrassing spectacle of the Obama administration lurching from paralysis to spasmodic incoherence and back on the Middle East and North Africa suggests that foreign policy will also loom large on the tea party’s agenda.

I say “foreign policy,” but there has been precious little policy — precious little in the way of thoughtful and consistent  activity — in the Obama administration’s tergiversations. On the contrary, Obama’s signature formula ^[2] — arrogance undergirded by the twin pillars of incompetence ^[2], on the one hand, and thuggish ^[3] if naïve progressivism, on the other — has ruled the roost these last weeks as the United States has lurched from embracing to expectorating one strong man after the next. It’s been a disastrous — and potentially a very dangerous — minuet that Obama and his minions have performed.

But the fiasco that is American action in the Middle East and North Africa at the moment is not the provence of Democrats only. There are also several Republicans who have bought into the “Arab Spring” narrative and seem to believe that what we are seeing in that part of the world is a reenactment of 1776 instead of an anarchistic uprising unified by sundry criminal and Islamist elements.  Indeed, the rose-colored glasses have been donned not only by Republican politicians but also by various conservative commentators who have traded common sense and appreciation of political reality for the emotion of virtue, a neo-Wilsonian sort of exchange that unfailingly ends in disillusion.

I’ll leave the starry-eyed commentariat to one side today in order to concentrate on a few prominent politicians who, when it comes to Libya, believe in walking loudly and carrying a preposterous shtick. I am thinking in particular of Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Joseph Lieberman who, for the last 15 minutes, anyway, have been loudly beating the war drum. (See this excellent piece ^[4] by Andy McCarthy.)

The time qualification is important. In the last few days, Sen. Graham has publicly described ^[5] Col. Gadhafi (“Gaddafi,” “Kadafi,” whatever) as an “international terrorist” and an “unlawful enemy combatant,” and has wondered why we couldn’t just “drop a bomb” to rid the world of him.  Sens. McCain and Lieberman, meanwhile, have been falling all over themselves to praise President Obama for bombing Libya. In a remarkable piece in the Wall Street Journal ^[6] the other day, they declared that “regime change” should be the goal of our military action in Libya. “[A] successful outcome in Libya,” they write,  “requires the departure of Gadhafi as quickly as possible.” OK. Then what? “By all accounts [all accounts, Kemo Sabe?]  the Transitional National Council is led by moderates who have declared their vision for (as their website puts it) Libya becoming “constitutional democratic civil state based on the rule of law, respect for human rights and the guarantee of equal rights and opportunities for all its citizens.” Isn’t that nice?

Now, I believe Ronald Reagan had it right when he described Col. Q. (or “K,” depending on your orthographic preference) as “the mad dog of the Middle East.” ^[7] After all,  the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, in which nearly 200 Americans died, was the handiwork of Libyan agents. The creepiness, to say nothing of the evil malevolence, of the “psychotic transvestite” (in Mark Steyn’s phrase ^[8]) is not in dispute.

The point is, however, that Col. Q. is not the only bad guy around.  And, despite the McCain/Lieberman valentine to the “Transitional National Council,” the fact is that the opposition, a.k.a. the “rebels,” in Libya are liberally represented by people every bit as scary ^[9] as Qaddafi. Besides, it seems only yesterday — actually, it was about 18 months ago — that the Three Musketeers  McCain,  Lieberman, and Graham went on a state junket to Tripoli to (as McCain himself put it ^[10]) cement and “deepen” the “ties between the United States and Libya” which (he said) “have taken a remarkable and positive turn in recent years.”

^[11]

  “Late evening with Col Qadhafi at his ‘ranch’ in Libya,” McCain tweeted at the time, “interesting meeting with an interesting man.” Lieberman thought he was pretty interesting, too, though standing mutely, mascot-like at McCain side he seems more like Howdy Doody than a U.S. Senator.

^[12]

  When Liberman does get around to talking, though, he, too, is effusive. Here’s a Wikileaks cable ^[13] about the chummy, high-level meeting:

“We never would have guessed ten years ago that we would be sitting in Tripoli, being welcomed by a son of Muammar al-Qadhafi,” remarked Senator Lieberman. He stated that the situation demonstrated that change is possible and expressed appreciation that Libya had kept its promises to give up its WMD program and renounce terrorism. Lieberman called Libya an important ally in the war on terrorism, noting that common enemies sometimes make better friends.

The dynamic trio was in Libya to discuss — wait for it —  expanding U.S. military aid to Libya and also — not incidentally — to try to stage manage the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie terrorist who had been incarcerated in Scotland but who was about to be set free on “humanitarian” grounds because he was suffering from terminal prostate cancer. The Obama administration was complicit in the release, asking only that he not be given a “hero’s welcome” in Tripoli. In the event, that’s just what he got ^[14] and, moreover, he seems to be living happily ever after, for that “terminal” cancer turned out to have many more stops before it reached the terminus, if it ever does.

Col. Q.’s rehabilitation started in 2003 when President George W. Bush told the world that Libya had given up its program to acquire nuclear weapons. Various diplomatic upgrades followed, including a visit from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in September 2008. In 2009, John McCain blathered on about the “mutual respect and friendship” that subsisted between Libya and the United States while Joe Lieberman  hailed Libya as an “important ally” in the war on terror. As recently as February 2011 — just a few weeks ago — President Obama asked Congress to increase military aid for Libya in order (so Fox News reports ^[15]) “to train Libyan military officers, improve its air force, secure its borders and to counter terrorism.”

Well, that was then. Now, in March and April 2011, we’ve rediscovered that Qaddafi is a mad dog after all. As I say, I never doubted that.  Senators McCain, Graham, and Lieberman had no reason to doubt it either. Still, as Andy McCarthy ^[4] notes, they went blithely ahead and embraced him. “With eyes wide open,” he writes:

The interventionist senators abetted the U.S. aid to Qaddafi and the legitimizing of his dictatorial regime. Given that this policy has contributed mightily to Qaddafi’s current capacity to consolidate his grip on power and repress his opposition, one might think some senatorial contrition, or at least humility, would be in order. But, no. Having been entirely wrong about Qaddafi, the senators would now have us double down on Libya by backing Qaddafi’s opposition — the rebels about whom McCain, Lieberman, and Graham know a lot less than they knew about Qaddafi.

What is more dispiriting, the Three Senatorial Musketeers falling over themselves in 2009 to praise Qaddafi, or the same trio in 2011 calling for his assassination in order to . . . what? After Qaddafi, then what? An army of young James Madisons just waiting to install themselves in Tripoli? And here’s another question, from William Hazlitt: “Were we fools then, or are we dishonest now?” As I say, in 2010 the tea party had its hands full with various domestic issues.  Those haven’t gone away, but I reckon we’ll be hearing a lot about our North African adventures in 2012. Here’s a question: do you suppose Qaddafi will still be presiding over the Libyan oil wells then? It would be a rash man, I suspect, who said No with any confidence.

---

Article printed from Roger’s Rules: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2011/04/03/tea-time/

URLs in this post:

[1] including me: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2010/11/15/who-governs/

[2] formula: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2010/05/31/the-secret-ingredient-in-the-obama-formula-for-success/

[3] thuggish: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2011/03/14/the-aroma-of-illegality/

[4] excellent piece: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/263694/senators-sway-andrew-c-mccarthy

[5] publicly described: http://mobile.salon.com/politics/war_room/2011/03/31/graham_gadhafi_libya/index.html

[6] Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576233112828325424.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

[7] mad dog of the Middle East.”: http://lonelyconservative.com/2011/03/video-ronald-reagan-called-gaddafi-mad-dog-of-the-middle-east/

[8] Mark Steyn’s phrase: http://articles.ocregister.com/2011-03-25/news/29193259_1_military-action-gadhafi-arab-league

[9] every bit as scary: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html

[10] McCain himself put it: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/22/john_mccain_libya

[11] Image: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNfztA1i0ts

[12] Image: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYVWT_kDTsU

[13] Wikileaks cable: http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/08/09TRIPOLI677.html

[14] that’s just what he got: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32487856/ns/world_news-terrorism/

[15] Fox News reports: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/24/did-qaddafi-deserve-funding-foreign-aid-scrutiny-amid-mideast-unrest/#ixzz1ISbNXNc6

OBAMA ON THE HOOK

OBAMA ON THE HOOK

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on DickMorris.com on March 29, 2011

With each of his policies, Obama takes a gamble.  If they work, he's OK.  If they don't, he's on the hook for the outcome.  Consider the extent of his exposure:

•    His involvement in Libya makes him responsible if Gaddafi stays in power and slaughters his own people and/or renews his connections with international terrorism. Obama will be equally responsible should Gaddafi be toppled and an Iraqi-style civil war erupts between his deposed supporters and the new government.  As General Powell said "you break it, you own it."

•    His support for the rebellion in Egypt and his action in forcing Mubarak from power makes him responsible should the Muslim Brotherhood take over the nation and use it as a basis for promoting terrorism and battling Israel, undoing the Camp David accords.

•    Obama's anti-oil drilling policies make him vulnerable should oil prices resume their upward march, particularly so if the Saudi monarchy is toppled and prices surge.  In that event, he will be subject to blame for encouraging the wave or revolutions on the one hand and neglecting our domestic energy resources on the other.

•    Attorney General Eric Holder's weakening of our domestic anti-terror efforts and his curbs on investigatory tactics make Obama responsible for any major terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

•    Should the economy enter a double dip recession, it will be Obama's recession.  No longer will the public blame Bush, but they will realize that it is Obama's policies which have led to disaster.

That's all a lot for a president to have on his plate.  But Obama keeps helping himself to more responsibility without clear exit strategies and with only a hope and a prayer standing between him and disaster.  He is now so dependent on the actions of other players -- Egyptian Muslims, Libyan rebels, Saudi insurgents, domestic terrorists, and global economic forces -- that he is no longer in control of his own destiny. 

He is now truly the hostage of events.  Not a good place for a president facing re-election to be.

from www.DickMorris.com 

Common Sense Commentary:

Obama, being devoid of real American ideas and ideals, won his election based on the cataclysmic failure of a foundational liberal system (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac forced sub-prime loan debacle) that he and liberals blamed George Bush for (see: Bush's Presidency - a quick response to a Liberal's Myths)

Now, "the hens are coming to roost", as his life long spiritual and ethical mentor quipped many times.

Without an effective foundational understanding of his responsibilities to America, or the American People, Obama drifts like a rudderless dingy in the currents and winds.

He still can win in 2012, because who knows what crimes liberal Democrats are willing to impose upon the American People. So, we have to fight hard for our nation.

But, the most important effort every America Patriot must pursue is to politely and patiently show their friends what reality is, as reality painfully sinks in to every Patriotic American other than the most extreme, hateful anti-American Liberal.

Our race is a marathon right now. Let's each of us pace ourselves for this, the greatest of America Marathons in our nation's recent history.

NO WAY OBAMA WINS IN 2012

NO WAY OBAMA WINS IN 2012

By DICK MORRIS

Published on TheHill.com on March 15, 2011
 

The combination of high oil and gasoline prices, rising food costs, higher health insurance premiums and the likelihood of future inflation has jarred consumer confidence, creating a major crisis for the Obama administration.

The collapse has been sudden and dramatic.

Terror Chatter High, Prepare Now with the Emergency Radio     

In December, the consumer confidence scale in the Rasmussen Poll stood at 81.7 percent. But in January, euphoria set in. Obama compromised on the George W. Bush tax cuts, the nation seemed to be coming together after the Giffords shooting and a Republican House sat poised to stop any new spending or social experimentation. On Jan. 11, the Rasmussen confidence index rose to 88.3.

Then reality dawned. Unemployment remained persistently high, economic growth was largely stagnant and partisan bickering resumed. The confidence level on Feb. 11 dropped to 84.5.

Then the bottom fell out. The daily Rasmussen polling reflected a drop day after day until, by March 11, the index had fallen to 73.1, its lowest level since it registered a 69 in July of 2009, in the depths of the recession.

The false dawn of January has faded and the hard, cold reality of a likely second recession is setting in. But this recession is accompanied by the likelihood of inflation, a stagflation syndrome that will probably grip America for years. And which will likely take a manmade recession, on the order of 1979-82, to counter it.

Will Obama get reelected? No way! In the teeth of the economic catastrophe that is shaping up, his chances are doomed.

The tsunami in Japan, perhaps the greatest tragedy since 9/11, will further impede any prospect for economic growth. There will be a demand for spending to repair the devastation of the quake. But Japan is tied with China as the world's second largest economy, generating 12 percent of the global GDP. With Japan neither producing nor buying for the foreseeable future, the drag on the global economy will be profound.

Worse, the Fed and the administration are out of tools to help. Interest rates are already at zero. Fiscal stimulus -- the deficit -- already consumes 40 percent of our total government outlays. The Fed is printing money at a ferocious rate under its qualitative easing (QE-2) program. What is left to do?

Only dramatic cuts in the federal deficit, a rollback of regulations that cripple small and community banks, a cancellation of future tax increase plans, a big reduction in federal spending, repeal of ObamaCare, freeing manufacturing from the prospect of carbon taxation and unleashing our domestic energy potential can solve our problems. But Obama is not about to undo his legacy of disaster for the American people.

And then there is the longer-term oil and gasoline crisis. Instability in the Middle East is going to mount, not recede. The chances of disruption in Saudi oil supplies and the possibility of an overthrow of the regime (triggered by the best efforts of Iran) will continue to force prices upward. The drag on the economy and the rising consumer discontent in the United States spell further problems for the Obama presidency.

As the Rev. Jeremiah Wright said -- outrageously and wrongly -- about 9/11, "the chickens are coming home to roost." The policies of this administration -- the disastrous overspending, the irresponsible borrowing, the social experimentation -- all are magnifying and amplifying the impact of the recession. Relief is not going to come anytime soon.

Instead, the true legacy of the Obama years is likely to be stagflation and an entire decade wiped out by his policies, budget and programs. Long after he is gone in 2013, we will still be repairing the damage of his terrible decisions.  

from www.DickMorris.com 

Common Sense Commentary:

Adding to Dick's analysis of Obama's political challenges, we have to add in the Electoral Vote and State challenges as well.  Obama won the presidency with 365 to 173 Electoral Votes (EV's) over John McCain.

Obama swept a number of kumbaya states that he will find impossible to sweep again. He was able to smooze and fool them last time, but they will not fall for his slick politicking this time. In fact, several of these states would now vote for Bush again, rather than Obama.

This includes Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, and New Hampshire and Nevada. Add to this the loss of a net of 6 Electoral Votes from the 2010 Census update, and Obama is now behind 266 to 272 EV's.

Adding to this the possible loss of a number of previous reliable Blue States, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Iowa and Obama has been seriously routed, losing 219 to 319.

Notice, we have not even looked at Colorado, New Mexico and he's down another 14 losing 205 to 333.

The 2012 POTUS Race is for the Republican candidate to lose, right now.  We will have to choose a candidate who is inspiring, grasps real world economics, and has the guts to rebuild America's weakened image abroad, while savvy enough to put out all the fires Obama has allowed to simmer into out of control blazes.  That prediction is for another day.

Blessings!

Blacks and Republicans

March 15, 2011

Blacks and Republicans

By Thomas Sowell

  Read: MLK was a Republican!

San Francisco's irrepressible former mayor, Willie Brown, was walking along one of the city's streets when he happened to run into another former city official that he knew, James McCray.

McCray's greeting to him was "You're 10."

"What are you talking about?" Willie Brown asked.

McCray replied: "I just walked from Civic Center to Third Street and you're only the 10th black person I've seen."

That is hardly surprising. The black population of San Francisco is less than half of what it was in 1970, and it fell another 19 percent in the past decade.

A few years ago, I had a similar experience in one of the other communities further down the San Francisco peninsula. As I was bicycling down the street, I saw a black man waiting at a bus stop. As I approached him, he said, "You're the first black man I have seen around here in months!"

"It will be months more before you see another one," I replied, and we both laughed.

Actually, it was no laughing matter. Blacks are being forced out of San Francisco, and out of other communities on the San Francisco peninsula, by high housing prices.

At one time, housing prices in San Francisco were much like housing prices elsewhere in the country.

But the building restrictions-- and outright bans-- resulting from the political crusades of environmentalist zealots sent housing prices skyrocketing in San Francisco, San Jose and most of the communities in between. Housing prices in these communities soared to about three times the national average.

The black population in three adjacent counties on the San Francisco peninsula is just under 3 percent of the total population in the 39 communities in those counties.

It so happens that these are counties where the voters and the officials they elect are virtually all liberal Democrats. You might be hard pressed to find similarly one-sided conservative Republican communities where blacks are such small percentages of the population.

Certainly that would be hard to find in states with a substantial total population of blacks. In California, a substantial black population has simply been forced by economics to vacate many communities near the coast and move farther inland, where the environmental zealots are not yet as strong politically, and where housing prices are therefore not yet as unaffordable.

With all the Republican politicians' laments about how overwhelmingly blacks vote for Democrats, I have yet to hear a Republican politician publicly point out the harm to blacks from such policies of the Democrats as severe housing restrictions, resulting from catering to environmental extremists.

If the Republicans did point out such things as building restrictions that make it hard for most blacks to afford housing, even in places where they once lived, they would have the Democrats at a complete disadvantage.

It would be impossible for the Democrats to deny the facts, not only in coastal California but in similar affluent strongholds of liberal Democrats around the country. Moreover, environmental zealots are such an important part of the Democrats' constituencies that Democratic politicians could not change their policies.

Although Republicans would have a strong case, none of that matters when they don't make the case in the first place. The same is true of the effects of minimum wage laws on the high rate of unemployment among black youths. Again, the facts are undeniable, and the Democrats cannot change their policy, because they are beholden to labor unions that advocate higher minimum wages.

Yet another area in which Democrats are boxed in politically is their making job protection for members of teachers' unions more important than improving education for students in the public schools. No one loses more from this policy than blacks, for many of whom education is their only chance for economic advancement.

But none of this matters so long as Republicans who want the black vote think they have to devise earmarked benefits for blacks, instead of explaining how Republicans' general principles, applied to all Americans, can do more for blacks than the Democrats' welfare state approach.

Copyright 2011, Creators Syndicate Inc.

www.Realclearpolitics.com

Common Sense Commentary:

The truth is Republicans also need to thread the needle with minorities.  

Republicans have always earnestly supported equal rights for blacks and minorities, while advocating limited government and free markets.  

But, where Republicans run in to trouble is when they condemn injurious programs, their language also attacks program recipients.  When this happens, the value and truth of the argument is lost in the pain of the injury. 

We saw this recently when Harry Reid was being hammered by Tea Partier Sharron Angle and was going to lose his Senate race, Angle then self-destructed her own race from attacks against all Hispanics in regards to the Illegal Immigration problem.

Of course, she lost the key Hispanic Vote, as do many Republicans, and because Hispanics are the predominant Union members, they were very easily manipulated by Reid and his corrupt Union bosses.

Had Angle been more pointed and attacked the corrupt Democrat Party efforts of forcing good people to break the law and creating a shadow citizenry, which is entirely against everything America and Republicanism stands for, and for which only the Democratic Party benefits, Angle might have easily won that race.

Americans are a very fair and honest people. And, Republican Political language often condemns the victims, and not the corrupt and failed big government programs. Thus, we lose the battle on the issue, and we lose the people who will benefit most from fixing the corrupt Democrat programs. 

What to do?

1     Attack the problem and its specific issues

2     Attack the liberal Democrats that create
       impossible problems for honest citizens

3     Accept that often "abusers" are also
       victims of government dysfunction

In Angle's case, 61% of Hispanics may be against Illegal Immigration, but 100% are against being grouped and attacked because of their race. Let's remember this.   

Now, on to 2012 to Reclaim America!

Blessings!