Can We Place Progressive Politicians and Musicians On A Secret List?

Like irrational toddlers, Congress critters stage a sit-in, musicians craft an open letter to Congress, and like clockwork, the radical agenda of the gun grabbing progressives marches forward.

The latest attempt by the extreme left to undermine Liberty is the notion that gun sales should be restricted to those on the no fly list. At first blush, it sounds like a reasonable accommodation, maybe even a "commonsense" solution. But who exactly is on the list, and how do they get there? Is it just foreign radicals, known jihadists from around the globe intent to go Aloha Snackbar in yet another gun-free zone? If only this were true.

As many have discovered, the DHS no fly list seems to struggle at determining who the bad guys are and who aren't. Some people are added and are never able to find out why, much less get their names removed. What happened to due process? What about the presumption of innocence?

The occupiers in Washington claim this approach is necessary to stop gun violence. It has been proven time and again that criminals rarely obey the law when it comes to acquiring their weapons. Even in cities with the strictest gun laws, criminals have little trouble finding the right tools to carry out their attacks. Chicago, with its draconian gun laws, is nothing more than city of future victims, clocking 12 murders and 54 shootings over Father's Day weekend alone. They are on pace for almost 600 murders and over 3,000 shooting victims in 2016. Does anyone seriously think adding a Chicago gang member to a list that keeps him from buying a gun will stop the war being waged on Chicago's streets? Its idiocy of the highest order. At the very least, arm the citizens so they have a fighting chance.

Even if it were possible to seize every weapon in a country, terrorism will still flourish. If not with illegally obtained guns, instead it would be with knives, pressure cookers, cars or even box cutters and pepper spray. If the enemy is motivated by a religion that glorifies murder, promising a heavenly whorehouse as a reward, no list will ever stop the attacks. And if our very own government refuses to name the source of the problem, how could they possibly identify those who might belong on such a list?

Instead, our very own Department of Homeland Security is too busy preparing to fight people who, reject "federal authority in favor of state or local authority." Those 10th Amendment supporting folks are a scary bunch. Don't forget those, "individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." If only I had a nickle for every pro life protester who has gone on a shooting rampage. The DHS report identifies anyone who opposes Obama as potential extremists, and even insults veterans by calling them potential terrorists.

Everything sounds like "commonsense" until it passes - the devil is always in the details. One man's terrorist "no fly list" soon becomes the next administration's political enemy hit list. This current administration authorized the outright persecution by the IRS of TEA Party and Conservative groups - often no more than mothers and wives from small town America trying to make a difference.

If this is what the government does to law abiding citizens in rural Alabama, what will they do to those who are more outspoken? Will they find themselves denied their 2nd Amendment Right because some other unelected bureaucrat like Lois Lerner seeks to punish those who believe differently than the party in power?

There have been numerous examples of government bureaucrats and their media shills labeling 2nd Amendment supporters, Christians, veterans, and people who support freedom in any form, as possible terrorists, while doing their best to ignore and excuse the proverbial elephant in the room. The SPLC includes Christian ministries, pro Israel groups, and Conservative groups on its absurd "hate watch" list. Since government is dominated by the radical left, who seem disinterested in actual terrorist threats, who would you trust to manage such a list?

If both the NRA and the progressive ACLU share concerns over the whole notion, it just might be a bad idea.

When the organization that is supposedly tasked with preventing terrorism continues to chase mythical enemies, while ignoring the ones already active worldwide, you know America is in trouble.

Member Acevedo (Austin, TX Police Chief) reminded the Council that the threat from right wing extremists domestically is just as real as the threat from Islamic extremism. (DHS) Secretary Johnson agreed and noted that CVE, by definition, is not solely focused on one religion. Member Goldenberg seconded Member Acevedo’s remarks and noted the importance of online sites in right wing extremist
communities, not only in America but worldwide.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Homeland Security Advisory Council
Meeting
–
Open Session
The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars 
January 21, 2016  

I would love for someone to point out even 5 terrorist attacks by "right-wing" extremists in the last 20 years. Because if they are truly a threat, they sure are keeping a very low profile. There is one group that continues to rack up a massive body count, and it certainly is not Christians or Conservatives. And just to be fair, once we exclude a certain religion of peace, why is it that nearly every violent nutcase is a public school educated lefty? If DHS was serious about our safety, they would simply put all progressives on their magical list.

Here are some "commonsense" solutions. Enforce the laws already on the books. If you are elected to office in the Federal government, don't arm criminals or support global terrorism. Keep violent criminals behind bars. Enforce immigration laws, denying entry to violent illegal aliens, and deporting those already here who fill the prisons to capacity. Screen all immigrants carefully, especially those from countries that have shown an unwillingness to discourage violent beliefs. Prosecute and/or deport all those who engage in preaching violence - this includes especially extremists on the left who are far more prone to violence. And finally, those people who are mentally ill, and a danger to themselves and others, must be addressed. Since many of these hold elected office in DC, it will be tricky to get them institutionalized and the help they so obviously need.

I have a passion for this issue because I love Liberty. And I oppose everyone who attempts to undermine it in anyway, even out of ignorance. The Founders were passionate about gun ownership because they knew the history of tyranny, many having firsthand experience with their natural rights being denied at the whims of the powerful. Don't let people, who for nefarious reasons, want to con you into conceding just a wee bit more of your Liberty for false promises of more security.

If gun ownership, free speech, free exercise of faith, protection from illegal search or seizure are all NATURAL, GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS, then even if you are a minority of ONE, NO vote, NO politician, NO mob, and not even any laughable "commonsense" solutions progressives dream up can deny any citizen those rights. Relinquish even one inch of Liberty to those in power at your own peril.

The Founders knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote our Constitution.

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." (John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763, reprinted in The Works of John Adams 438 [Charles F. Adams ed., 1851])

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. " (Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution," 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56 [New York, 1888])

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 [Univ. of Alabama Press,1975])

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244)

Madison Library

 

Trump's New York City Values

Born and raised in New York City, Donald Trump lives and breathes progressive politics, crony capitalism, and the typical union corruption found in major metro areas in the Northeast. Its not surprising that connecting with Conservatives in the Midwest would be difficult. He even at one point dismissed Iowa with a resentful question, “How stupid are the people of Iowa?”

It was in Iowa that his "New York values" entered the campaign. I might have narrowed it to #NYCvalues, because it is in the city where this most definitely applies. Trump feigned umbrage, and tried to explain away the values comments as insulting first responders and victims of 9/11. And just like the "stole the election" claims do not resonate with most folks, everyone with half a brain understood what is meant by New York values. In fact, Trump explained it for us in an interview in 1999.

 

In Trump's own words, his values differ GREATLY from the rest of the country. They reflect where he lives, and are so far to the left, he could be an ideological twin of Hillary Clinton. It is why he has made numerous donations to Democrats over the years, including checks to Hillary. Many people can and do evolve in their political beliefs, recognizing Right from wrong, and Good from evil. Normally, this is done by their late 20s, not in their 60s. And while Trump's views on key issues change daily depending on the audience he is addressing, it doesn't take much imagination to anticipate what is truly in his heart. Can someone so nurtured by progressive thought be trusted when it comes to religious Liberty, shrinking the government, protecting the innocent in the womb, following the Constitution, or simply being honest with Americans?

History says, that like Texas weather, you just wait 15 minutes and Trump's positions or party affiliation will likely change. He has changed parties at least 5 times, and threatens to run as an independent if he feels the GOP is unfair to him. Considering his fragile ego, that is probably a very low threshold.

NBC News has compiled a fairly comprehensive list of his campaign flip flops. Just on the abortion issue alone, you see Trump's "evolution" is ongoing, holding multiple contradictory positions over just a few days! (See videos at both links)

Why is this important? Americans need to know what the man stands for if he is elected. You cannot have a President that sticks his tiny fingers to the wind, or takes a poll, for every decision. Americans must be confident that the ship is not rudderless, tossed to and fro on the waves of his volatile emotions. As The Word tells us, a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. (James 1:8) And we need stability in Washington now more than anything else.

I believe National Review, and Ted Cruz at the Wisconsin town hall, made astute observations regarding Trump's answers to various questions on issues like abortion. He answers the way he THINKS Conservatives would answer. Listen carefully to the words he uses and how he fishes for what he believes Conservatives MIGHT want to hear.

At times, his responses seem reasonable, but more often than not, they sound like they are written for an SNL skit mocking Conservatives. There is no deep thinking on the ethical, moral, Constitutional, or even Spiritual reasons why murdering babies is wrong. Trump's knee-jerk response is that society should punish women who have abortions. Is this a well thought out, reasonable, or even Conservative approach? Or is it because that is what he THINKS Conservatives want to hear? Same thing with the wall, immigration, trade, or any issue. His answers are rarely founded on Constitutional principles, Christian morality, economic reality, or even Conservative values.

Its interesting that Trump would use the word "punish" with regard to abortion. Yet another progressive candidate not too far back saw pregnancy as a punishment of women. Such is the distorted reasoning and spiritual darkness of the left.

Now take a listen to Ted Cruz discussing the same issue with someone who is for abortion. Note the reasonableness of his answer, that is built on a foundation of faith, rule of law, commonsense, and the Constitution. Which candidate has a better grasp of the importance of protecting life, and how best to legally and morally approach this very important issue as POTUS?

And that is just one issue, albeit a very important one that separates the wheat from the chaff. The same case could be made for building a wall. There is already legislation in place to build a border wall. But the wall itself is just one tactic in the greater struggle to manage America's borders and halt illegal immigration. There must be a willingness to enforce the law throughout the country. Law enforcement and immigration must be willing to deport those who are here illegally. The next President must be willing to deploy all resources necessary to do the job properly. The administration must listen to the men in the trenches, and give them the latitude and support to complete the mission. What might be best in Arizona, might not be effective in the Rio Grande Valley. But as in the link above, no bureaucracy or city must stand in the way of stopping the invasion along our Southern border.

As a candidate, if you truly do not believe that illegal immigration is a problem, that flooding the country with unskilled labor is desirable, a 50 foot wall will be a complete waste of resources. Or, for the hardcore progressive, the wall could just as easily be built to keep Americans from fleeing tyranny.

What is in the heart of the candidate matters. The current progressive in the White House has ignored the Constitution, used the IRS to attack political opponents, selectively enforced the law, and made up the rules as he went along. Donald Trump is just another progressive, who is arrogant enough to believe that he could be a better tyrant than Obama. He desires power not to make America great again - something NO politician can ever do, but rather a selfish lust for power. That in a nutshell is New York City values - the strong, rich, and powerful make the rules. And in progressive New York, intolerance for the views of others reigns supreme.

The Republican Party candidates are running against the SAFE Act — it was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are. -- Governor Andrew Cuomo, New York

NYC progressives buy votes by promising handouts, raise taxes until they chase away all productive citizens, and then still insist on micromanaging every aspect of life. Is NYC, the progressive Utopia where Donald Trump was raised and celebrates, the model he will apply to the nation as President? Has he EVER stood up to the ever expanding bureaucracy, always increasing taxes, and general corruption of his hometown, or even state? What makes any thinking person believe Trump will change his stripes in Washington?

George Washington presiding the Philadelphia Convention

New York City values are inconsistent with Conservatism, and what our Founding Fathers put in place. I don't want MY progressive in the White House. I want someone who is a Christian, someone guided by Truth, and a Constitutional Conservative, someone who will follow the Constitution and reign in the abuse and growth of government under the progressive leadership of the past. Donald Trump is not, and will never be that man.

Ben Shapiro - Everyone Knows What 'New York Values' Are, So Stop Bitching

Ted Cruz - The Ultimate Ladies Man

In order for this National Enquirer story about Ted Cruz to have legs, there must be a significant suspension of disbelief. Observe.

1. Ted has lived in DC over 3 years now. Everyone claims that nobody likes Ted. It is said that he is the most hated man in Washington. He was surrounded by colleagues who would do anything to undermine him. DC is full of hostile media always digging for dirt, especially on Conservative politicians. AND the current administration has almost infinite surveillance capabilities, and a knack for destroying their political enemies. With ALL that against him, there was not a single shred of evidence uncovered UNTIL Ted became a serious threat, and then, as if by magic, it just so happened Trump's longtime friend at the National Enquirer gets the scoop?

2. Pundits and bloggers have written that Ted is a geek and ugly. He has been unfavorably compared to Grandpa from the Munsters. So the NE story claims this "nerdy" and "unattractive" man gets to Washington and becomes the ultimate ladies man? I know his hands are much larger than Trump's freakishly small hands, but is that really enough to make the women come running to Ted?

3. How many women on this planet would be sexually aroused by someone who memorizes the Constitution?

Obligatory Music Break - Featuring Finnish Pop Star Jenni Vartiainen, and her song Nettin, about being maliciously exposed to the public on the Internet.

4. People in Congress are always surrounded by aides, constituents, media, strategists, lobbyists, security, and a host of other people who come and go in DC. Is it possible that a Congress Critter could have an affair - absolutely. Is it possible for a Conservative Senator from Texas, who is hated by EVERYONE, to carry out 5 in three years without ANYONE in the mainstream press or either party EVER discovering and disclosing it?  In this day and age, its highly doubtful. Even an editor from the left-leaning Texas Monthly is incredulous.

5. Note that it was not just one affair reported, but 5. Why 5? Why not 11, or 27? If you are going to lie, why not go full Trump whopper? This is classic sleazeball progressive politics, combined with reality TV-inspired flair by Donald Trump. Remember - its the seriousness of the charge that counts, not the truth. Trump just needs to introduce a little bit of doubt into the minds of voters about Cruz. The average voter might doubt a story about 1 or 2 mistresses, but what if there are 5? Some of THAT story just might be true. Hey, and that's more mistresses than the media has reported from Trump's recent past. As Dan Rather would have you believe, even if the evidence is forged, the story must be true since it fits the narrative. Or more succinctly, its fake, but accurate. Even Rather's dissonance about forged documents and the truth is not at all applicable with this ridiculous piece of tripe.

6. Here was part of Donald Trump's response to the story. 

"I have no idea whether or not the cover story about Ted Cruz in this week’s issue of the National Enquirer is true or not..." 

Of course he knows its not true. Look at how he qualifies EXACTLY where and when you find this story, which according to him, may or may not be true. Stay classy Donald.

Trump continues to exhibit a sadistic personality disorder. Though I am not aware if it has been professionally diagnosed, I surely hope he seeks immediate treatment.

See how easy it is to Tweet passive aggressive statements like Trump? And just to be perfectly clear, the above statement is completely fictitious... as far as you know.

The Oompa Loompa continues...

“Ted Cruz’s problem with the National Enquirer is his and his alone, and while they were right about O.J. Simpson, John Edwards, and many others, I certainly hope they are not right about Lyin’ Ted Cruz.”

That certainly sounds a lot like the words of someone who played a part in the proliferation of this hit piece. And why not, the supermarket tabloid endorsed Donald Trump for President. It has continually rushed to his aid at just the perfect moment, taking out Carson and Fiorina when they threatened him in the polls. Notice again the qualifiers above attempting to inflate the integrity of the tabloid. NE might be the best of the supermarket rags, but its still at the absolute bottom of the media food chain, just slightly above Globe and Weekly World News. And that alone should be enough to discredit and dismiss this story.

Trump should call is good friend at the Enquirer and demand a stop to these muckraking shenanigans. Somehow, I doubt that will happen.

Oompa Loompa doompadee doo
I've got another puzzle for you
Oompa Loompa doompadah dee
If you are wise you'll listen to me

What do you get from a glut of TV?
A Trump in the race and an IQ of three

 

What If Trump Ran As A Democrat?

Let's face it, Democrats are at a crossroads. They have lunged so far to the left that they now must choose between a radical left-wing nutcase, and Bernie Sanders. The former is just a brave prosecutor away from permanently wearing orange jumpsuits. The latter is at least honest enough to admit that he is socialist, and for that alone I respect the man.

Which brings us to Donald Trump. He is a reality TV celebrity, a businessman, and during this election cycle a Republican candidate for POTUS. That he would run as a Republican is a bit odd. As a lifelong New Yorker, which is not known for producing Republicans, let alone Conservative ones, he seems quite out of his element. Party loyalty is not something Trump is known for, having switched parties at least 5 times in his life. And to keep it real, he has given substantial sums to Democrats including thousands to Hillary Clinton, the likely DNC opponent in the general election. Apparently, donating to Clinton was not enough, as Trump really likes the politician.

Should we dismiss Trump's thousands donated to DNC candidates, and specifically to the DNC front-runner? Is it at all strange that he would have such glowing words for the opposition?

Take any issue that divides Conservatives and progressives, like abortion for instance. Most normal people recognize the difference between Good and evil, Light and darkness, at a much earlier age than their late 60s. Murdering children whether in the womb or outside the womb is evil. There is no wiggle room on this issue. We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Shoving scissors in the back of an infant's head CLEARLY, undermines those UNALIENABLE Rights. And yet Trump seems ambivalent on the issue. Praising his judge sister who supports partial birth abortion, and he seems quite supportive of Planned Parenthood, which murders infants in numbers that would make the Nazis blush.

If there is one clear dividing line between Conservatives and progressives, abortion is it. So if Trump feels so strongly about funding Planned Parenthood, and supports abortion even to the point of the diabolical partial birth version, then it makes little sense to run as a Republican.

So why didn't he run as a Democrat? If any party needs a course correction, it is definitely the DNC. And Trump is a natural fit. Living in New York he shares their values, believes in crony capitalism, and is used to big government corruption. He is the ideal progressive candidate. He enjoys the celebrity culture of the DNC, and is uncomfortable with ordinary folks who treasure principles, Godly values, and civility.

When it comes to votes, he attracts DNC voters like government handouts. The Texas primary provided ample evidence of this as the the GOP primary went from 1.4 million voters in 2012 to 2.8 million this year. While the numbers are exactly opposite for the Democrats going from 2.8 million in 2008, and dropping down to 1.4 million this year. Even with such a staggering Democrat influx, Trump had to settle for a humbling second place finish, falling nearly 500,000 votes behind Ted Cruz. In probably the most reliably Conservative state in the country, over 70% of the GOP voters selected someone other than Trump. Had he run in the DNC Texas primary, he likely wins in a landslide.

Trump's path to the White House would be far simpler destroying what is the weakest DNC field since Mondale ran against Reagan. After 8 years of Obama, even Democrats are doubting their leadership and party direction. So it literally makes no practical sense for Trump to abandon his natural base, and attempt to reimagine himself a Conservative.

So, why is he running as a Republican?

Policy By Panic - Global Warming

Did you catch this random act of journalism in Slate discussing global warming's outlandish predictions?

I'm shocked to see the author, Bjørn Lomborg, stray slightly from global warming orthodoxy. Look for Bjørn to be shunned at the next earth worship service.

And while its nice to have some fun with this piece, the author makes a good point about policy by panic. Fear mongering is not an acceptable path to change hearts or minds. Because of all the wild claims made by the left over the years (hole in ozone, DDT, Alar, new ice age, mortgage crisis etc), many like myself are automatically suspicious of any prediction that comes from the Progressive-Democrat-Media complex. When you have folks eager to "never let a crisis go to waste," it is highly probable that they would create one, real or imagined, to implement their agenda.

The man-made global warming crisis gave me great pause when I first heard about it. I remember the outlandish claims in the 70s - that we would have to move to Mexico to avoid freezing to death in the coming ice age. Thankfully, that idiocy died rather quickly. But the myth of man-caused global warming will not end so gracefully. There is just too much money at stake, too many UN agendas to implement, too many 3rd world countries to plunder, and too many reputations at risk for this nonsense to finally die.

Commonsense should tell you that the sheer size of the Earth, a planet that is over 70% water, and with only a small percentage of land inhabited by humans in any appreciable density, would limit mankind from having much, if any influence on the GLOBAL climate. Even a limited scientific knowledge should cause you to consider the Sun, which is beyond man's control, as the most significant driver of any climate change. And even if you focused exclusively on greenhouse gasses, why would you not focus on water vapor, which is by far the largest greenhouse gas, instead of CO2? And of course there is the Earth's historical record, which includes long periods that were both much colder and much warmer than now, and sometimes much higher concentrations of CO2, should make any wild claims of man's influence on global temperatures suspect.

But this blog is not to dispute the why or why not of global warming. Climate change has happened in the past, and will happen again, with or without man's help. This is about the propaganda war waged by the left.

When Al Gore and other warmanistas claimed after Hurricane Katrina that global warming would cause ever increasing numbers of storms like Katrina, with ever increasing destructive power, it was laughable. We are now almost 2500 days (2488) removed from the last Cat 3 or above storm making US landfall. This far surpasses the last record (1900-1906 - 2231 days). But do you hear any "believer" apologizing for their obvious fear mongering? No. They are still pushing this nonsense with ever increasing fervor and even more ridiculous claims.

This is where Bjørn hits the nail on the head. Every incident, climate related or not, seems to get blamed on global warming. BTW - I know the warmanistas have been running away from the global warming term, but as far as I am concerned, they invented and own it, and I will use it as long as free speech is still allowed. The warmanistas use every drought, rain shower, snowstorm, tornado, heat wave, cold snap as absolute proof of global warming, in spite of sometimes overwhelming evidence against such claims. They make ridiculous predictions about more frequent hurricanes or the Arctic sans ice, and are never called out when these predictions are epic failures. If they want anyone to take this issue seriously, the propaganda needs to end.

IF the climate is changing, let REAL scientists do their job figuring it out apart from the politics and agitprop. Let them examine all factors before automatically blaming man. You may just find that the climate is getting warmer no matter what man does. If that is the case, it hardly seems prudent to tax the world into the stone age, leaving the common folks, those not enjoying the Carbon Tax/Cap & Trade windfall, incapable of adapting to their changing environment.

The Message of Massachusetts...

Along with most Americans I was happy to see Scott Brown win in Massachusetts, but not that surprised. Even though this election was to replace Ted Kennedy, one of the most liberal Senators in my lifetime, and in one of the most liberal states in the union, this election was about course correction.

The Democrat party is not the party that my parents supported. The leadership is full of people who truly believe that government can do everything. And the bigger the government, the better they can do it. Individual Democrats worship Chairman Mao and other radical leftists from history. They crave power to implement all their socialist dreams on an unsuspecting population. And for years, Democrats could rely on union members, Democrats and others to support them no matter what.

Well, last night something changed all that. A Conservative candidate won in a very blue state. He may not be the perfect Conservative for everyone, but he is a far cry from Ted Kennedy when it comes to important issues like fiscal restraint or a government takeover of health care. Small steps, right?

With Obama's win in 2008, and the Democrat takeover of Congress two years earlier, the country has been on a downward spiral, made worse by reckless Obama policies. Unemployment at 10% (much higher (17%) if you count those that have given up), foolish spending and treating terrorists as common criminals are just a few of the problems created by the current leadership.

Voters have had enough. Its not really a Republican versus Democrat thing. It is a Progressive versus Conservative thing. America is a Conservative country and Americans recoil at the thought that government will run their health care or anything else. Hopefully a moderate Democrat party will emerge from this defeat, but somehow I doubt it. November should be a major course correction back to the center of the political spectrum where most Americans call home.