The Rick Santorum for President Campaign did a great job in putting this video together!

Rasmussen and, everybody knows, the independents in terms of political consultants, these people that hire themselves out, the supposed expertise to get candidates elected, independents is where they go to work every day, the so-called undecideds, the moderates, independents, whatever you want to call them, the 20%, basically that are not ideologically tied to either the Republican or the Democrat Party… Read more…

I’ve always found it strange that the independents — say if John Boehner were to be critical of Obama — would say, “Okay! That’s it! We knew it! We’ve had it with you Republicans. To hell with you! We’re going back to the Democrats,” where we’re treated daily with the rackets of people like Barney Frank and Maxine Waters who tell us to go to hell and worse. I, frankly, have never bought it, but our side has.  Read more…

I guess you didn’t notice that the independents abandoned Obama as far back as November 2010 in the midterm elections? Obama hasn’t had these independents for onto a year now, and nothing he’s doing is going to get them back. He’s in danger of losing his base. That’s why he has to assume positions and speak the rhetoric that he truly believes. Read more…

I am apparently the black sheep of political consultants as I never advise my clients to go after the independents but rather I parrot Rush Limbaugh with “Conservatism works every time it’s tried.”

For more than 20 years now we have tried comparing Republican candidates to Ronald Reagan and most candidates have tried likening themselves to Ronald Reagan.  Reagan wasn’t the standard, Reagan was the exception and many of us have long desired to find someone to match his character, his commonsense approach to fiscal issues, and his socially conservative values. But, if Ronald Reagan was running today, could he win? Could he overcome the desire to “just beat Obama” by going after the so-called Independents?

I truly don’t know where the notion has come from that in order to capture the independent vote and beat Obama, we must have a Republican Nominee who is not too socially conservative. My guess is that this has been dreamed up by the left and perpetuated through the mainstream media and has saturated our culture to the point that those on our side have forgotten history and have actually bought into this notion.

At this same point in Jimmy Carter’s Presidency, Carter had a 54% approval rating. George HW Bush was at 50% at the end 1991 then lost to Clinton in 1992.  Obama is currently sitting at 43%.  Going back nearly a century, no president with an approval rating below 50% at the end of their third year has won re-election.  Carter was actually the exception in that he had a rating over 50% and actually lost.  Not only did Carter lose, but Ronald Reagan won in a landslide with a 44 state victory.

Now, who carried Ronald Reagan to victory?  The Religious Right (defined as Christian political groups that are characterized by their strong support of socially conservative policies) was “blamed” for his victory by the mainstream media. AND, as an added bonus in that election, the Republicans captured the Senate for the first time since 1952 (how ironic that we also need to take the Senate in 2012).

Please compare and contrast Ronald Reagan with a Moderate Republican like John McCain, who was well known for “reaching across the aisle.”  Even compare and contrast him with both George Bush’s (and Bob Dole) who were not known for being social conservatives.  What happens when we move to the middle to get the so-called Independents?  The Religious Right sits home and does not vote, as they did with John McCain. Have we forgotten the narrow Bush victory over Gore?

With 75% of Americans identifying themselves as Christian, does it not make sense we should appeal to them, even if all we desire is to simply beat Obama?  I believe the real reason there were large numbers of “Reagan Democrats” was because the people held to their religious convictions much closer than they held to their political ideals. We must step up and support the candidate who will inspire conservatives to turn out and vote.  That candidate is Senator Rick Santorum.

Kerry Wood
SC State Director
Rick Santorum for President

I receive tons of email and try to read and respond to everyone.  I also receive tons of stuff which is simply being forwarded along that doesn’t require a response (typically humor).

If someone sends a video for me to watch and it’s less than 2 minutes long, I’ll generally take a look.  If it is more than 5 minutes long I will generally disregard it.  There is simply too much stuff out there and no one can read or watch it all.

When I received the above video and saw it was more than 30 minutes in duration, my first inclination was to shut down my browser, delete the email, and move on, but partly due to the person who sent it and partly due to a little voice inside insisting that I take time out and watch, I did just that.  Very glad I did and posting here in hopes more will take the time.

Think about how upside-down the world has seemed since Obama was elected in 2008.  Things we never believed could EVER take place in this country are becoming common-place at a pace that is both frightening and mind-boggling.  The more our political world has been churning out of control around us, the more we gravitate toward a conservative rock like Senator Jim DeMint.

What has separated Senator DeMint from the political-pack is that he has been willing to step out and do what is right, regardless of how others are behaving. This is why it is so difficult to believe he would be trying to play king-maker in his presidential forum, entertaining the likes of Romney and Gingrich (and including undeclared candidates like Giuliani and Palin) while leaving out someone like Rick Santorum (who at least finished 4^th in the Iowa Straw Poll, above most of those invited).

Hiding behind a Real Clear Politics poll is not the right thing to do.  Our country needs clear, conservative leaders and we need to be able to count on the ones we have, like Senator DeMint, to continue doing what is right and not play into the mainstream.  There is no doubt in my mind that Senator DeMint knows who all the players are and what they really stand for. It is his forum and he can certainly do what he likes, but it seems the right thing to do would be for him to invite a truly conservative slate of his choosing.

Should we really have any faith in polls, based on what we’ve seen put out by the mainstream? It is time to FORGET who the mainstream is telling us to choose and do the right thing and give solid conservatives like Rick Santorum a fighting chance.

2007

Overwhelming majority of media claims the recession started in 2007. What the mainstream media should have claimed is victory in 2007 as they spent the entire Bush presidency trying to convince the public that the economy was bad. You remember; this is way back when unemployment was barely breaking 5% and gasoline was under $2 a gallon. We would hear people say how bad things were, but it was never them, it was the other guy… who? “I dunno but people are hurting…”

Compare to today, when things are really bad and if you haven’t been unemployed yourself in the past few years, you likely have a close friend or family member that has which you can quickly point to.

2008

The year of Obama (If you are Chinese, 2008 was also the Year of the Rat). As the year gets started and it looks as though they will get either Hillary or Obama elected, the media has a big problem on its hands. Everything they allowed to falsely define a bad economy is actually heading south. They talk about how much better it is going to be under the Democrats, but they know it’s not really going to be. They must do something to brace the public for the coming disaster other than simply blaming it on Bush. The Double-Dip Recession arrives:

From the Wall Street Journal (02/08/2008):

The economy isn’t even officially in recession yet, and already some are warning of a “double-dip”: a slump, followed by a brief recovery, then renewed slump.

Double-dip recessions are rare, and not well defined.

Their agenda was clear:

From the Washington Times (12/26/2008):

With only 26 days left to harangue, mock and bash President Bush, some of our colleagues in the media aren’t wasting a day. Bashing ex-presidents, except for the ex-presidents with shrill prominent wives, isn’t nearly as much fun as bashing while he’s still the real thing.

There’s method in the gladness at the New York Times, which relieved itself at the beginning of Christmas week with an umpity-thousand word accusation – beginning on Page One and continuing across several acres of newsprint inside – that George W. Bush invented the meltdown of the subprime housing market, which in turn has led to the collapse of Detroit and all kinds of bad things for Atchison, Topeka and maybe even Santa Fe.

The point of the epic was clearly to portray George W. as the new Herbert Hoover, so that when recession becomes Depression (with the capital-D) not a single rabbit will be safe anywhere and everyone will remember who did it and – voila! – the Republicans will be shut out of the White House and control of the Congress for a generation, and maybe more.

2009

Bloomberg (08/24/2009):

Nouriel Roubini, the New York University professor who predicted the financial crisis, said the chance of a double-dip recession is increasing because of risks related to ending global monetary and fiscal stimulus.

Politico (10/07/2009):

Could a double-dip recession be near?

All that’s enough to convince some observers that the economic recovery is faltering and could be heading for a “double dip” recession. And that would mean the recent green shoots of recovery turn out to be just a pause in a much longer economic slide.

And management consultant Peter Cohan wondered in his economic blog: “I don’t know why the market moves up and down from day to day, but lately a growing fear of a double-dip recession could be a contributing factor.”

CNN Money (11/16/2009):

6 double dip warning signs

Will recovery turn into recession?

Most economists agree the U.S. economy is in recovery. The question is whether it will stay that way.

The economy grew at a 3.5% annual rate in the third quarter. But even with that shot in the arm, there are plenty of worries about whether the economy could topple into another period of decline, or “double dip” recession, early next year.

NBC News (11/18/2009):

President Barack Obama gave his sternest warning yet about the need to contain rising U.S. deficits, saying on Wednesday that if government debt were to pile up too much, it could lead to a double-dip recession.

2010

Christian Science Monitor (06/05/2010):

US is falling into a double-dip recession.

The only reason the economy isn’t in a double-dip recession already is because of three temporary boosts: the federal stimulus (of which 75 percent has been spent), near-zero interest rates (which can’t continue much longer without igniting speculative bubbles), and replacements (consumers have had to replace worn-out cars and appliances, and businesses had to replace worn-down inventories). Oh, and, yes, all those Census workers (who will be out on their ears in a month or so).

But all these boosts will end soon. Then we’re in the dip.

Huffington Post (07/01/2010):

A Double-Dip Recession Defined

Concerns are rising that the economy is at risk of slipping into a “double-dip” recession.

Yahoo Finance (08/16/2010):

What the Double-Dip Recession Will Look Like

A growing and vocal minority of economists believes that there will be a double-dip recession primarily because of the intransigence of high unemployment and the rapidly faltering housing market.

Mother Jones (08/25/2010):

Is A Double-Dip Recession – Or Worse – Finally Here?

In the past few days, though, a chorus of economists have voiced increasingly pessimistic views on where the economy is headed. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics and a former McCain aide, said on Monday that the housing market was headed for a “double-dip” of its own as the last effects of the federal government’s first-time homebuyer tax credit finally escape the housing market. “We probably, almost assuredly, will experience more house price declines,” Zandi told CNBC. “By those two criteria, I think that would qualify as a double dip.”

2011

The lame-stream media is once again pimping the notion of a double-dip recession and everyone is talking about it as though it is something real. Well it’s nothing short of pure fiction. We would have had to have some sort of real recovery then dip back into recession again.

While there is no official definition of recession it is commonly described as short-term.

From Webster: Depression:

A period of low general economic activity marked especially by rising levels of unemployment.

This is where we really are – DEPRESSION – and Obama OWNS it whether the lame-stream media acknowledges it or not.

Valerie Jarrett – Power Behind the Throne

I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.” There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president.

I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama. Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position. This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton. She was livid over the president’s failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such. As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts. One, that the military action could fail and harm the president’s already weakened standing with both the American public and the world. Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East.

Nothing changed with the president’s opinion – he continued to avoid having one. Every time military and intelligence officials appeared to make progress in forming a position, Jarrett would intervene and the stalling would begin again. Hillary started the ball really rolling as far as pressuring Obama began, but it was Panetta and Petraeus who ultimately pushed Obama to finally act – sort of. Panetta was receiving significant reports from both his direct CIA sources, as well as Petraeusoriginating Intel. Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack. Panetta reported back to the president that a bombing of the compound would result in successful killing of Osama Bin Laden, and little risk to American lives. Initially, as he had done before, the president indicated a willingness to act. But once again, Jarrett intervened, convincing the president that innocent Pakistani lives could be lost in such a bombing attack, and Obama would be left attempting to explain Panetta’s failed policy. Again Obama hesitated – this time openly delaying further meetings to discuss the issue with Panetta. A brief meeting was held at this time with other officials, including Secretary Gates and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but Gates, like Panetta, was unable to push the president to act. It was at this time that Gates indicated to certain Pentagon officials that he may resign earlier than originally indicated – he was that frustrated. Both Panetta and Clinton convinced him to stay on and see the operation through.

What happened from there is what was described by me as a “masterful manipulation” by Leon Panetta. Panetta indicated to Obama that leaks regarding knowledge of Osama Bin Laden’s location were certain to get out sooner rather than later, and action must be taken by the administration or the public backlash to the president’s inaction would be “…significant to the point of political debilitation.” It was at that time that Obama stated an on-ground campaign would be far more acceptable to him than a bombing raid. This was intended as a stalling tactic, and it had originated from Jarrett. Such a campaign would take both time, and present a far greater risk of failure. The president had been instructed by Jarrett to inform Mr., Panetta that he would have sole discretion to act against the Osama Bin Laden compound. Jarrett believed this would further delay Panetta from acting, as the responsibility for failure would then fall almost entirely on him. What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound. Basically, the whole damn operation was already ready to go – including the specific team support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being given notice. Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault. This information reached either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates first (likely via military contacts directly associated with the impending mission) who then informed the other. Those two then met with Panetta, who informed each of them he had been given the authority by the president to proceed with a mission if the opportunity presented itself. Both Gates and Clinton warned Panetta of the implications of that authority – namely he was possibly being made into a scapegoat. Panetta admitted that possibility, but felt the opportunity to get Bin Laden outweighed that risk. During that meeting, Hillary Clinton was first to pledge her full support for Panetta, indicating she would defend him if necessary. Similar support was then followed by Gates. The following day, and with Panetta’s permission, Clinton met in private with Bill Daley and urged him to get the president’s full and open approval of the Panetta plan. Daley agreed such approval would be of great benefit to the action, and instructed Clinton to delay proceeding until he had secured that approval. Daley contacted Clinton within hours of their meeting indicating Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval. Daley then informed Clinton that he too would fully support Panetta in his actions, even if it meant disclosing the president’s indecision to the American public should that action fail to produce a successful conclusion. Clinton took that message back to Panetta and the CIA director initiated the 48 hour engagement order. At this point, the President of the United States was not informed of the engagement order – it did not originate from him, and for several hours after the order had been given and the special ops forces were preparing for action into Pakistan from their position in Afghanistan, Daley successfully kept Obama and Jarrett insulated from that order.

This insulation ended at some point with an abort order that I believe originated from Valerie Jarrett’s office, and was then followed up by President Obama. This abort order was later explained as a delay due to weather conditions, but the actual conditions at that time would have been acceptable for the mission. A storm system had been in the area earlier, but was no longer an issue. Check the data yourself to confirm. Jarrett, having been caught off guard, was now scrambling to determine who had initiated the plan. She was furious, repeating the acronym “CoC” and saying it was not being followed. This is where Bill Daley intervened directly. The particulars of that intervention are not clear to me beyond knowing he did meet with Jarrett in his office and following that meeting, Valerie Jarrett was not seen in the West Wing for some time, and apparently no longer offered up any resistance to the Osama Bin Laden mission. What did follow from there was one or more brief meetings between Bill Daley, Hillary Clinton, a representative from Robert Gates’ office, a representative from Leon Panetta’s office, and a representative from Jim Clapper’s office. I have to assume that these meetings were in essence, detailing the move to proceed with the operation against the Osama Bin Laden compound. I have been told by more than one source that Leon Panetta was directing the operation with both his own CIA operatives, as well as direct contacts with military – both entities were reporting to Panetta only at this point, and not the President of the United States. There was not going to be another delay as had happened 24 hour earlier. The operation was at this time effectively unknown to President Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett and it remained that way until AFTER it had already been initiated. President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission. Upon his arrival there was a briefing held which included Bill Daley, John Brennan, and a high ranking member of the military. When Obama emerged from the briefing, he was described as looking “very confused and uncertain.” The president was then placed in the situation room where several of the players in this event had already been watching the operation unfold. Another interesting tidbit regarding this is that the Vice President was already “up to speed” on the operation. A source indicated they believe Hillary Clinton had personally made certain the Vice President was made aware of that day’s events before the president was. The now famous photo released shows the particulars of that of that room and its occupants. What that photo does not communicate directly is that the military personnel present in that room during the operation unfolding, deferred to either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates. The president’s role was minimal, including their acknowledging of his presence in the room.

At the conclusion of the mission, after it had been repeatedly confirmed a success, President Obama was once again briefed behind closed doors. The only ones who went in that room besides the president were Bill Daley. John Brennan, and a third individual whose identity remains unknown to me. When leaving this briefing, the president came out of it “…much more confident. Much more certain of himself.” He was also carrying papers in his hand that quite possibly was the address to the nation given later that evening on the Bin Laden mission. The president did not have those papers with him prior to that briefing. The president then returned to the war room, where by this time, Leon Panetta had personally arrived and was receiving congratulations from all who were present.

In my initial communication to you of these events I described what unfolded as a temporary Coup initiated by high ranking intelligence and military officials. I stand by that term. These figures worked around the uncertainty of President Obama and the repeated resistance of Valerie Jarrett. If they had not been willing to do so, I am certain Osama Bin Laden would still be alive today. There will be no punishment to those who acted outside the authority of the president’s office. The president cannot afford to admit such a fact. What will be most interesting from here is to now see what becomes of Valerie Jarrett. One source indicated she is threatening resignation. I find that unlikely given my strong belief she needs the protection afforded her by the Oval Office and its immense powers to delay and eventually terminate investigations back in Chicago, but we shall see.

In researching I found a site called Cube Stat that claims to be able to analyze the worth of your website. So, I couldn’t help but plug in a couple for fun:

Google = $2.1 Billion!

Yahoo = $547.5 Million!

Okay… so then I wondered if the worth of political sites could tell us who the front runner may be:

Tim Pawlenty = $246,484

Gary Johnson = $5,928

Newt Gingrich = $4,947

Herman Cain = $2,949

Rick Santorum = $1,554

Okay… this really doesn’t seem a likely method to replace a scientific poll any time soon…

Make no mistake, the Tea Party is here for one primary reason, and that is to fight the socialism which continues to creep into our lives. Socialism that would force us into government healthcare. Socialism that would equate an evil, killing, suppressive Muslim religion with Christianity. Socialism that would grant amnesty (and cater) to millions of people who came into this country illegally. Socialism which will take away our guns to make us all equal victims. Socialism that WILL trample every square inch of our Constitution as it infects our great land with their psychological poisoning.

All in the name of “public” good, these institutions take our children against the will of many parents AND force them to pay for it. How, on God’s green earth, can anyone actually stand up and defend such a thing? Go ahead and try to marginalize me and call me names and say this is untrue as I know your tactics well. But answer this one simple question: If I decide to keep my child out of the government school system and I decide to quit paying my taxes and use that money to pay for a Christian education that I believe will better my child, will the government actually leave me alone and let me do that?

Socialism believes that everyone SHOULD be equal and if they are not, the government is to be the equalizer. This is the great fallacy of socialism as we are not all equal. If we were, all of life would be dull and gray. The fact is; some are more capable where some just work harder. There would be no “sport” to sports if we were all equal. There is no Nobel Prize for the collective… we are not Borg…

If you believe in your government education so much, let me see you look a parent in the eyes and tell them their child is just like every other child in the system, when their child actually does need something different. Do you have the guts to do that?

There are two children in my family that were in Spartanburg District 6 schools when Obama was running for office. They were in two different grades, one was in elementary and one was in high school and BOTH were preached to on how wonderful Obama was (during school). The elementary school student received this in much larger doses than the high school student. The District 6 elementary teacher frequently talked about how old McCain was and not likely to even live long enough to serve while talking about how healthy Obama was, and other such nonsense.

This has been for Tommy and those like him, but this is for those GOP Statehouse members who will hold up or vote against this legislation:

• Do you really want to oppose We the People on this issue?
• Do you really want to stand on the side of socialism?
• Do you really want to work against parents just trying to give a better education to their children than they received?
• Do you REALLY want to stand of the side of a Godless government institution?
• Who are you that would deprive a parent the right to make decisions for their children?
• Who are you that would deprive a child of a better education?

You can actually fear that government education machine all you want. We understand that fear as well as we understand the basis for that fear.

But you need to understand this; we do not need cowards representing us. We need representatives who will stand up and do the right thing. If you cave into this fear you have for them, I promise you will just replace it for a new fear as there are now more of us (We the People types) than them (liberal educrats). The Spartanburg Tea Party website continues to grow and is now receiving 12,000 hits from more than 6,000 visitors PER MONTH. In the past 12 months, according to Google, this one website has been visited by nearly 21,000 individuals. Guess what? Most of these are in the Upstate and THEY ALL VOTE!

This legislation is a line in the sand. This is where we stand and fight. We will work to replace all House members voting against this in 2012.

As I’ve spoken to people about this over the past couple of days, most seem shocked it is so quick and I’m afraid some have felt slighted as thought they’d been left out of the loop.  Our decision to do this just came about over the past couple days, so we apologize for the short notice, but after trying to work out several other dates and actually plan a full blown wedding, we decided it was much more about “us” than a production.  This Friday is a special day for Donna, being her mother’s birthday and she believes this is something her mother would have really liked.

Being such short notice we are expecting a rather small gathering, but everyone is invited and we hope you’ll join us!

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, more than half of that meager 1% only exports to one country (typically Canada or Mexico).

U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke states the Obama Administration “aims to double American exports over five years.”

REALLY? In five years they seriously want to have a whopping 2% exporting? Careful here, don’t set a goal too lofty.

If the federal government were serious about pumping up this economy, creating jobs and increasing exports, I would have just one word for them: Deregulation!

We have over taxed and over regulated US businesses to the point we have driven them completely out of this country.  How much have we heard over the past couple of decades about shipping jobs overseas?  All the US businesses that were selling TO other countries found out a very simple truth; It is easier and cheaper to locate your business WITHIN the other countries you are doing business with.

Lower corporate taxes, deregulate, and let’s bring businesses and jobs back to the US! We would more than double that 1% and in a much shorter period of time.