Posts tagged: Mitt Romney

Illinois on Verge of Becoming America’s Most Democratic State

Illinois-Flag

Written by Russ Stewart

Illinois is an anomaly. It is “The Land of Lassitude.” Voters are passive, partisan and forgiving. In state government, there are no checks and balances to Democratic abuses, ineptitude and favoritism.

In any other state, when a governor is impeached, indicted, convicted and imprisoned, the party of that incumbent would be shamed, tarnished and ousted. Not in Illinois.

In any other state, when one party controls all the levers of government — governor, both houses of the state legislature and the supreme court — and that party fails to govern effectively, voters would hold them accountable and they would be ousted. Not in Illinois.

In any other state, when a governor raises $24 million over a 5-year period, much of it from vendors doing business with the state government, there should be an inkling of voter, media and legislative concern, if not outrage, over “pay to play.” Not in Illinois.

In any other state, when the speaker of the house, in power for 30 years, has a daughter who is the state attorney general, raises $6 million per election cycle from corporations and unions, and uses that money to elect compliant, controllable Democrats, voters would rebel. Not in Illinois.

In any other state, when a governor poses as a reformer, raises individual and corporate income taxes “temporarily,” then reneges on the promise and wants to make the increase permanent, his credibility is shot. Not in Illinois.

In any other state, when the governor ceaselessly panders to voter blocs, advocating gay marriage, driver’s licenses for illegal aliens and minimum wage hikes, but dithers on key fiscal issues, he’s a goner. Not in Illinois.

In most states, ethnic, racial, religious and cultural groupings typify the political environment. Among the more heterogeneous Democrats, intrinsic differences and rivalries occasionally contribute to the election of a Republican over an “unacceptable” Democrat. Not in Illinois. With the exception of conservative Glenn Poshard’s defeat for governor in 1998 by George Ryan, every Democratic constituency supports every Democrat.

In any other state, when the governor, faced with state debt of $44.7 billion, unfunded pensions of $85 billion, unpaid Medicaid bills of $7 billion, and the certainty that one-third ($10 billion) of the state’s annual revenue stream will be allocated to pension payments by 2017, he has a problem. When he adopts a pro-union position of no pension cuts, he’s a goner. Not in Illinois.

In any other state, where the governor and legislature constantly bicker and squabble, where the more liberal senate is constantly at variance with the more conservative house, and where the Democrats control both chambers by veto-proof super majorities (over 60 percent) of 40-19 and 71-47, one would expect voter disgust. Not in Illinois. In 2012 even more Democrats were elected to the General Assembly.

In Illinois, politicians who are mendacious, inept and felonious don’t poison the party well as long as they’re Democrats. Yet a Republican like George Ryan, who did what the Democrats have always done — extorted campaign donations from state employees — went to jail and poisoned the Republican statewide ticket in 2002. Of course, the equally disgraced Rod Blagojevich, now in federal prison, didn’t elicit anti-Democratic revulsion in 2010, when Pat Quinn kept the governorship by 31,834 votes.

Illinois’ problem, and Republican candidate Bruce Rauner’s conundrum in 2014, is that it has become an obsessively partisan state. The Republican brand is hugely unacceptable. Democratic abuses are overlooked. Minorities simply will not vote for any Republican candidate, no matter how repugnant the Democratic candidate is. Blacks are 15 percent of Illinois’ 2010 population of 12,864,380, Hispanics are 16 percent, and Asians are 5 percent, and the white population is 73 percent. That’s gives the Democrats a locked-in voter base of 20 to 25 percent. To win, a Republican needs to get 65 percent of the white vote. Unfortunately, white women vote for Democrats, usually by 60-40 margins, while white men back Republicans by 55-45.

In addition, Illinois has evolved into a city-state. The urban population in Chicago, the Cook County suburbs and the Collar Counties outnumbers the state’s other 95 counties by 2-1. More than 62 percent of the state’s registered voters are in the Chicago metropolitan area, and 38 percent are Downstate.

In virtually every other Midwestern state, politics is driven by ideology. The Republicans are the party of white conservatives from the suburbs or rural areas, and the Democrats are the party of white liberals, minorities, gays and feminists. The moderate or independent vote, usually about 15 to 20 percent, determines the outcome. That is the norm in states such as Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Iowa.

Interestingly, Illinois is not yet one of the country’s most habitual Democratic states. That distinction belongs to Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maryland and Connecticut, all of which are city-states dominated by urban Democrats, but each of which recently has elected a Republican governor to compensate for overwhelmingly Democratic legislatures. That’s “checks and balances.” Not in Illinois.

Here’s a review of a few states:

Hawaii: Nowhere is ethnic, religious and cultural factionalism more evident than in Barack Obama’s birthplace. Hawaii makes Illinois look like an oasis of tranquility. It is a prototype of America’s emerging bi-racial society, where half of all married couples are biracial. Of the general population, 42 percent are at least partly white, 57 percent are of Japanese, Chinese or Filipino heritage, and 26 percent are native Hawaiians or Pacific Islanders. Japanese Americans are dominant. There are Buddhists, Hindus, Christians and Jews. Virtually all the factions detest the Republicans.

The state’s preeminent politician was the late Daniel Inouye, a Japanese American who was a senator from 1962 to 2012 and who built the state’s Democratic machine. After becoming a state in 1959, a Republican governor was elected, but a Democrat controlled the statehouse from 1962 to 2002. Obama won the state with 71 percent of the vote in 2012. The Democrats have 24-1 and 44-7 majorities in the Senate and House. In 2002 voters rebelled and elected Jewish Republican Linda Lingle as governor. She was re-elected in 2006 but was term-limited in 2010. New York-born Congressman Neil Abercrombie won the governorship in 2010 with 58 percent of the vote, but he created a firestorm when, after Inouye’s death in 2012, he appointed white Jewish lieutenant governor Brian Schatz to the vacancy rather than Japanese-American Buddhist congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa. Now Hanabusa is challenging Schatz, and Abercrombie has a Japanese-American primary foe. It’s biracial warfare.

Honolulu’s former native Hawaiian mayor is running for governor as an independent, and the Republican candidate is Lingle’s former lieutenant governor, a Japanese American. In a three-way race, the Republican can win.

Massachusetts: Legendary for being the only state to support George McGovern in 1972 and for foisting Michael Dukakis on the Democrats in 1988, Massachusetts last voted for a Republican for president in 1956. It is a one-party state, with the Democrats up 9-0 in the congressional delegation and with legislative majorities of 36-4 in the Senate and 129-29 in the House. Obama won Massachusetts with 61 percent of the vote against the state’s former Republican governor, Mitt Romney. Yet Massachusetts had a Republican governor for 32 of the 62 years from 1952 to 2014, and continuously from 1990 to 2006. Voters are sophisticated. They intuitively understand that rapacious legislative Democrats (sounds like Illinois) need the check and balance of a Republican governor.

Rhode Island: Obama won the state with 63 percent of the vote in 2012, and the Democrats have majorities of 32-5 in the Senate and 69-6 in the House. There is no Republican presence in Providence. Yet the Democrats haven’t elected a governor since 1990. A Republican was elected in 1994, 1998, 2002 and 2006, and a liberal former Republican U.S. senator was elected as an independent in 2010. The winner in November likely will be Democratic state Treasurer Gina Raimondo, who is pro-charter schools and anti-union.

Vermont: The state boasts Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist, as a senator. Obama won 67 percent of the vote in 2012, and the legislature is 23-7 and 97-44. Yet a Republican was the governor from 2002 to 2010 and, before Democrat Howard Dean, for many years in the 1970s and 1980s.

Maryland: Call it “Washingmore,” a true city-state comprising Baltimore and the Washington, D.C., suburbs. Illinois has had Republican governors for 38 of 62 years since 1952. In Maryland, in the 60 years since 1954, Republicans have been elected governor twice, and they served a total of 6 years. Spiro Agnew, later the disgraced vice president, won in 1966 and resigned in 1968. Bob Erlich won in 2002, defeating Bobby Kennedy’s daughter, but he lost in 2006. Obama won an astonishing 78 percent of the vote in 2012, in a state with a 31 percent black population. In November Democratic Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown, will be elected to succeed Marty O’Malley, who is running for president.

Republican states such as Kansas, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, Indiana and North Dakota occasionally elect a member of the opposite party as governor, as a reaction to an incumbent’s ineptitude. So do Democratic states Connecticut, New Jersey, Maine and Michigan.

However, if Quinn beats Rauner, Illinois arguably will rank as America’s most Democratic state.


This article was originally posted at the RussStewart.com blog.

“Here’s What You Ought to Do” said the Fox to the Chicken

Written by Micah Clark, AFA of Indiana

Scores of commentators have been rehashing the results of the November 6th election and advising the GOP on what it ought to do.  Let me say this to Republicans: only a party of fools would now take advice from the same media establishment that worked around the clock to ensure your defeat.  Instead of listening to the “talking heads” appearing on TV, both Republicans and Democrats would be wise to look at some amazing voter data from some truly large voting blocs.  They represent half of the American electorate, and their voting patterns have now been analyzed.

I don’t like breaking Americans into racial or ethnic classes, as I believe values of family, freedom and prosperity are universal virtues, not ethnic ones.  Still, there has been a lot of attention paid to the Hispanic vote. However, it consisted of just 10 percent of the vote total. (Seventy-two percent of the vote was white, but the media makes it sound like a small demographic.).  Far less attention has been paid to the votes cast by evangelical Christians who made up 26 percent of the total vote or 30 million out of 117 million votes.

Of those 30 million voters who identified as evangelical “born-again” Christians, 6.4 million of them voted for Barack Obama, who won by 2.4 million votes.  Twenty-one percent of these evangelical Christians voted to support the most pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-religious liberty, and anti-Israel administration in history.

Another huge multi-million bloc of voters were Catholics, who account for an additional 25 percent of the electorate.  Amazingly, after nearly two years of unprecedented hostility toward Catholic institutions and religious teachings on contraception, abortion, and marriage, an astonishing 50 percent of Catholics still voted for President Obama. Yet, it is a decline of 4 points since 2008.   (Obama received 42 percent of the votes of “practicing” Catholics.)

This double-mindedness is not unusual. It could be said that those most hurt by the worst economy since the 1930’s heavily voted to continue the policies of the Obama administration rather than change them.   Yet, what does it say about those people who identify as Christ-followers, but vote more like Atheists in the privacy of a voting booth?

The huge voting bloc of evangelicals and Catholics could still create enormous change for their issues, but only if they vote consistently with their faith.  By the way, the same number of evangelicals and fewer Catholics voted in 2012 than did in 2008. Just a few million more evangelicals and Catholics voting for pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-religious liberty candidates could offset other demographics that are becoming more liberal and have garnered the fascination of the media.

It is estimated that there were 35 million evangelical Christians who did not even vote! If just 10 percent of them went to the polls and voted their values, it would have turned last week’s results into a large Mitt Romney win.

Life Site News notes that the same disconnect could be said of pro-life voters.  You may not know by the media and political talk lately, but this summer Gallup Polling found that the number of Americans who support abortion had dropped to an all-time low (41 percent) and the number who are pro-life was at a record high of 51 percent.   Yet, last Tuesday, exit polls found that 59 percent of voters expressed a pro-abortion position.  Either pro-lifers didn’t show up, or many of them voted for the most pro-abortion administration in history.

This news is a result of the mile-wide, inch deep Christianity that fails to disciple its followers to turn Biblical views into public action. It is also a reminder that millions upon millions of people of faith are choosing to listen to and think like the culture around them rather than applying God’s instructions to their hearts and minds.  Moreover, it is not enough to tell people in the pews every other October to “vote your values” if those values are not being taught regularly on Sundays and lived out on Mondays.

This flat turnout data and voter schizophrenia should also confirm that if either the Republican Party or the Democrat Party wants the bulk of the large evangelical and Catholic vote bloc, it needs to have candidates with strong credentials on values issues.

As for the media’s advice, it is nothing new.  Here is a remarkable two-minute clip from Ronald Reagan back in 1975 talking about this.  Even during the Presidency of Gerald Ford, a moderate’s moderate, the establishment was calling for the party to moderate its views following the defeat of 1974.

NAACP And the White Sexual Anarchists

Exclusive: Matt Barber shames black organization for buckling to ‘gay’ activists

As his re-election hopes dim, the mainstream “progressive” media continue to run interference for Barack Obama. It’s predictable. They no longer even try to hide it. They persist in slobbering on their over-hyped, under-capable would-be savior as his campaign collapses around them. The sycophancy is embarrassing and the desperation palpable.

Most recently, they’ve created a stir around the NAACP crowd booing Mitt Romney at the decidedly liberal group’s national convention in Houston, Texas. The activist attendees didn’t like the fact that President Obama’s presumptive GOP challenger intends to repeal Obamacare if elected.

Still, what you won’t hear from the mainstream media is the fact that those very same left-leaning activists gave Mr. Romney a rousing ovation when he pledged to defend the institution of real marriage from secular extremists’ ongoing attempts to radically re-define it.

During his speech, Romney quoted former NAACP Executive Director Benjamin Hooks, noting that the family “remains the bulwark and the mainstay of the black community. That great truth must not be overlooked.”

The former Massachusetts governor then promised the conference-goers: “Any policy that lifts up and honors the family is going to be good for the country, and that must be our goal. As president, I will promote strong families – and I will defend traditional marriage!”

At this, the crowd erupted into sustained applause.

Herein lies the ongoing rift between the NAACP leadership, its rank and file and the African-American community at large. By recently joining with President Obama to endorse counterfeit “same-sex marriage,” the NAACP leadership betrayed the very constituency it presumes to represent. It blundered its way directly into conflict with the vast majority of African-Americans.

“Traditional marriage enjoys steadfast support in America, especially among African-Americans,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) in response to Romney’s pro-family pledge. “Just this past May, an overwhelming percentage of black voters supported a marriage protection amendment in North Carolina, just as they did several years ago in California and in other states,” continued Brown.

“We know that despite the actions of some African-American elites, rank-and-file voters in the black community continue to support marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” he concluded.

Indeed, by throwing their collective weight behind such extremist, San Francisco-style social engineering, both the president and the NAACP have exposed just how out of touch they are with the rest America – particularly African-Americans. (Consider, for instance, that in 2008, over 70 percent of black voters supported Prop. 8, California’s natural marriage-protection amendment.)

By backing the absurd, oxymoronic notion of so-called “same-sex marriage,” the NAACP leadership has allowed itself to be played by “the man.” (In this case “the man” is the mostly white, “progressive”-elite establishment.)

The black community is having none of it. A group of leading African-American clergy called “The Coalition of African-American Pastors” (CAAP) has called on both President Obama and the NAACP to honor their pledge to represent the interests of the black community instead of radical white special interests.

In an interview with the Christian Post, the Rev. Bill Owens, CAAP president, noted: “The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People needs to be recalled to its founding purpose. Black people face acute and urgent needs, from unemployment to education, family fragmentation, discrimination and crime.

“We are calling on the NAACP, a beloved organization in our eyes, to reclaim its mission. The black church founded the NAACP, and it is not the organization for the advancement of gays and lesbians – whatever the merits of that movement. Return to your roots and stand with the black church on marriage. The black church in our eyes remains the conscience of America.

“More than anything, this is an issue of biblical principles, and President Obama is carrying our nation down a dangerous road,” continued Owens. “Many African-Americans were once proud of our president, but now many are ashamed of his actions.”

For decades now, well-organized, well-funded and politically powerful homosexual pressure groups have, with impertinence, hijacked the language of the authentic civil rights movement.

In what amounts to a sort of soft racism, this mostly white sexual anarchist faction has disingenuously and ignobly hitched its little pink wagon to a movement that, by contrast, is built upon the genuine and noble precepts of racial equality and humanitarian justice.

Indeed, that Barack Obama and the NAACP would align themselves with a militant, immoral lobby that literally takes “pride” in arrogant rebellion against biblical principles is, perhaps, what’s most troubling about this inexplicable political misstep.

It’s offensive – disgusting, in fact – that this pleasure-based, sex-centric movement – delineated by deviant proclivities and behaviors – would dare to equate its demands for celebration of bad behavior to Christian notions of racial equality.

Pastor Ken Hutcherson, an influential black pastor from the Seattle area, put it well: “It has been said loudly and proudly that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. If that’s the case, then gays would be the new African-Americans. I’m here to tell you now, and hopefully for the last time, that the gay community is not the new African-American community.

“Don’t compare your sin to my skin!” he demands.

Alas, how far we’ve come from the character-content vision of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. who, like his fellow Republican, Mitt Romney, recognized the critical importance of marriage and family. How we’ve perverted what constitutes true civil rights.

Shame on you, NAACP.

And shame on you, Barack Obama.


Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action (LCA on Facebook) . (Title and affiliation provided for identification purposes only.)

The Awakened Giant Likes tea

Written by Matt Barber

It’s often said, “Be careful what you wish for – you just might get it.”

Democrats got it all right.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts – once counted among the constitutional originalists on the high court – has granted President Barack Obama’s supreme wish. By inexplicably siding with the court’s left wing and upholding the president’s signature achievement – government-run socialized health care – Roberts has given Democrats a shiny election-year package adorned with a judicial-activist bow.

The excessive celebration has begun. Nancy Pelosi immediately released a statement gloating, “We made history. … We completed unfinished business!”

Exhibiting that characteristic class intrinsic to “progressivism,” other high-level Democrats took to Twitter: “it’s Constitutional. B*tches,” tweeted Patrick Gaspard, executive director of the Democratic National Committee and all-around sexist pig.

To his credit, Mr. Obama showed a bit more of a measured response. At least he bothered to abbreviate his sophomoric profanity tweeting about his signature achievement: “Still a BFD…” (BFD stands for “Big F–king Deal”).

Our potty-mouthed president then quickly moved on to wishful thinking: “With today’s announcement, it’s time for us to move forward.”

Not likely, chief.

Indeed, as gleeful Democrats tear feverishly into Justice Roberts’ glittery gift, they seem oblivious to the fact that coiled inside and poised to strike rests an election-year viper chock-full of political poison.

What liberals celebrate as a historic milestone is likely a political millstone that may well drown them in November. The American people didn’t want this job-killing, economy-destroying, health-care-rationing monstrosity then; and we don’t want it now.

Like yappy little Marxist pugs, Democrats have, for decades, been chasing the socialized medicine mail truck.

OK, so they finally caught it. Now what?

The absurdly tagged “Affordable Care Act” remains wildly unpopular with most Americans. Polls have not wavered. By a two-to-one margin voters want the plug pulled on Obamacare.

As even Michael Shear of the uber-liberal New York Times acknowledges: “[T]he ruling also has the potential to re-energize the tea-party movement … and provide new political power to Mitt Romney’s pledge to repeal the law. … Republicans eager to seize control of the Senate now have a renewed rallying cry in races across the country.”

And the GOP’s nominee-to-be has wasted no time. It must’ve been all high-fives around the Mitt Romney headquarters. Shortly after the ruling the former Massachusetts governor took to the microphones, warning America: “If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we’re going to have to replace President Obama. … What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president.”

That’s a powerful promise to a lot of independent voters. Indeed, in little more than 24 hours, Romney had raised nearly $5 million on his pledge to repeal Obamacare alone.

I don’t mean to diminish how utterly mind-boggling the court’s ruling remains. Legal scholars will be dissecting this bizarre decision for decades to come. Still, what I’m more interested in, at least for now, is how the ruling will affect the 2012 elections.

Under any objective analysis, it’s a boon for Mitt Romney and the GOP. Most damaging to Obama and Democrats, perhaps, is the fact that Obamacare’s individual mandate was held to be a “tax” rather than a “penalty.”

Recall that, while Democrats were using parliamentary sleight-of-hand to ram Obamacare through on Christmas Eve, 2009, they expressly wrote into the bill that fines associated with an individual’s failure to fork over the bucks amounted to a penalty, not a tax.

President Obama promised the same, saying on multiple occasions that the individual mandate was – you guessed it – a “penalty,” not a “tax.”

Nevertheless, Chief Justice Roberts enigmatically joined the four known Supreme Court liberals to effectively revise the bill so that it might pass constitutional muster. To do so, they arbitrarily invoked the government’s taxing power, despite lawmakers’ legislative intent to the contrary. This, by definition, is legislating from the bench. It’s judicial activism.

The effect? Obama and Democrats are a pack of liars. They’ve promised, over and again, not to raise taxes on the middle class.

Well, middle class, congratulations. You now have 21 brand new tax increases costing you over $700 billion out of pocket.

How do you like them peas?

It’s a double-edged sword. Obamacare has become ObamaTax. Although this strange legal fiction may have temporarily saved the health-care overhaul, it likely spells doom for Democrats in November. Ultimately, when all the smoke has cleared, this means that Obamacare remains on life support and is fading fast.

Shortly after Thursday’s decision, Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law, said: “Elections have consequences. Obamacare is the result of squandered votes cast in 2008. This November, we need to elect principled people who will repeal Obamacare.”

And by “we,” he means you.

In the 1970 film “Tora! Tora! Tora!,” shortly after bombing Pearl Harbor, Japanese Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto is portrayed as saying, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”

On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court awakened a sleeping giant.

This giant likes tea.

Remember 2010, Democrats. Mr. Obama? Well, to borrow from Bachman-Turner Overdrive: You ain’t seen nothing yet.


Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as vice president of Liberty Counsel Action.

Modified by Matthew Medlen.com