Category Archives: politics


Defense of the Constitution Can Unite Conservatives, Libertarians and Independents … and Save the GOP

United-States-ConstitutionThe GOP confronts what could threaten to be a crippling dilemma.  If real it could prove fatal to its viability as a political party.  Electoral victory requires both its libertarians and its social conservatives.  And they are at odds.

These two crucial elements have a strained relationship.  The libertarians, overrepresented in the party’s donor, underrepresented in its activist, base keep marginalizing social conservatives.  Libertarians keep trying to blunt conservative impact inside the GOP and in campaigns.

This is magnificent.  But it is not war.

Meanwhile, social conservatives look upon libertarians in much the same way as the U.S. Army troops looked at Gort in The Day The Earth Stood Still.    No good can come of this.  My fellow conservatives!  Repeat after me:  Klaatu barada nikto.

Both party elements need to work together to survive the assault by Big Brother.  For many years, libertarians and the social conservatives made common cause against the common enemy of communism.  Communism is dead.   No comparably impressive adversary appears on the horizon. (Obamunism, for all of its horrors, is a pallid threat compared with having 45,000 nuclear weapons pointed your way.)

And, as we discovered in 2008 and 2012, divided we fall.  This is especially true in that the party’s Superconsultants and operatives tend to truckle to the donor base.  And if the donors say to marginalize the social conservatives, well, Republican Superconsultants live by the golden rule: “he who has the gold makes the rules.”   They do so even if it consistently, demonstrably, loses elections.

Will the libertarian-conservative anti-Big-Brother coalition crumble? Will the GOP break into warring duchies?  It could happen.

Consider the Great Christie-Paul War of Words of 2013.  The urban-elite Chris Christie launched a Pearl Harbor attack against the rural-populist Rand Paul.  Enough of that would, of course, leave the field clear for the Democrats to elect the whole federal government in 2016.  And, Gov. Christie, while Time Magazine will reward you with sycophantic coverage for driving wedges in the Republican coalition that’s … trading birthright for pottage.

But a crumble is not the most likely outcome.  The GOP more likely is poised to emerge more strongly than it has been in many cycles. As quantum physicist Niels Bohr once said, “How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.”

What the Republican Party is confronting appears more a paradox than a dilemma.  Its predicament could prove a source of strength rather than doom.

The intra-party fracture is most pronounced when it comes to policies touching on sexual mores.  Libertarians tend to reflect the mores of urban elites, favoring gay marriage and, for many (although by no means all), a laissez faire attitude toward abortion.  This sophisticated stand, of course, wins props from The New York Times.  It brings rewards from many, wealthy, party donors.

Yet it has several major handicaps.  The most salient of these is that it demonstrably loses votes.  For a political entity that’s a poison pill.

Traditional values as vote getter (not just within the party base but with Independents — including ethnics and blue collar workers) violates the meta-narrative of the party elites.   Still, the conclusion that traditional values is a net, and a legitimate, vote getter is almost impossible to avoid.

As Frank Cannon, president of the American Principles Project (with which this columnist has a professional association) has repeatedly pointed out, while sophisticated values has social cachet they lose net votes. Presidential candidate John McCain, refusing to campaign on social issues, lost California by a whopping 24 points.  That same year California’s Prop 8, banning gay marriage, won by 4 points.

This fact makes urban elites uncomfortable.  They consider “traditional values” déclassé … or even bigoted.  Nonsense. America is, after all, a representative democracy.   It is from the “consent of the governed,” the Declaration of Independence says, that are derived “the just powers” for which Governments are instituted among Men.

It is right here, and in the Declaration’s successor document, the Constitution, that the forces uniting libertarianism and conservatism, and the key to the GOP’s salvation, reside.  The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is replete with guarantees of liberty upon which libertarians and conservatives can build a healthy concordat — even including provisions with which they might not be fully comfortable.

Enter … Constitutionalism.

As George Washington stated in his farewell address: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness. . . .”  Prohibiting morality and ethical codes to religion, or to society because based in religion, makes a travesty of the Bill of Rights.  Moral codes of religions have Constitutional dignity.   The State is constrained, by the Constitution, to show some respect.

Whether or not one agrees with orthodox religious values … the adherents are legitimately, and constitutionally, entitled to have, to practice, and to press for the State to reflect their values. Libertarians and conservatives can disagree while taking a principled stand for the legitimacy, under the Constitution, of one another’s position.  Even though many libertarians fully approve of gay marriage they can, with authenticity, also honor the First Amendment guarantee of “… no law …prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].”

Preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution, especially its Bill of Rights, provides ample grounds for unity between libertarians and most conservatives.  Many of our civil liberties — dear to libertarians and conservatives both — are under assault by progressive forces.

There is much to collaborate on:  preserving freedom of speech, and of the press, and of the free exercise of religion; honoring the right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances; not infringing the right to keep and bear arms; rehabilitation the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonably searches and seizures; the right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.  Even, casting the net a bit wider, the classical gold standard and the repeal of the Estate tax!

Meanwhile, social democrats have their own, abundant, internal contradictions. Most glaring right now: the American health care system indeed is a scandal.  We get some of the most expensive and worst health care of any industrialized country.  Yet the Democrats’ purported solution, Obamacare, portends to thrust us out of the frying pan … and into the fire.  Senator Max Baucus, a Democrat and one of its legislative architects, called it “a huge train wreck coming down.”  Good intentions are no substitute for making us mere voters actually better off.

American progressives keep promising Denmark, a true socialist workers paradise and the happiest country in the world, and delivering Detroit: now entering the Ninth Circle of Hell.

Bohr’s comment about paradox and progress connotes that there are no such things as paradoxes in nature.  The discovery of an apparent paradox creates the possibility of progress by revealing a fallacy in our perspective.  Only at the far fringes of libertarianism and conservatism do these two worldviews enter red-line-crossing conflict.  They are natural allies.

Call this columnist crazy but … respect for the Constitution, and our constitutional rights, can reunite the GOP, and unite it with ethnic and blue collar Democrats and with Independents, creating a winning combination. Crazy?  This columnist, again, takes solace from Bohr, this time to Wolfgang Pauli: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.”

Enter Constitutionalism.

This post was originally posted on

Ralph Benko

Ralph Benko is a principal of Capital City Partners, of Washington DC. He is also the author of The Websters’ Dictionary: How to Use the Web to Transform the World, for policy and advocacy groups to use the Web powerfully.

More Posts - Website


Republicans Clueless About Minorities

fox_news_babesRepublicans are losing elections in part because they are losing key demographic groups. Some of those groups, like Hispanics, are growing, making them impossible to ignore. 37 percent of the country is nonwhite. Hispanics comprise 16 percent of the population, accounting for half the population growth within the past decade. 51 percent of children born in California are Hispanic, and 46 percent of the population in New Mexico is Hispanic.

Republicans have had difficulty making inroads with Hispanics due to their position on illegal immigration. The left and its other half, the liberal media, have convinced many Hispanics that tough immigration laws are racist. While this is not true, Republicans have had little success convincing Hispanics otherwise. Meanwhile, Republicans continue to make “enforce the border” key parts of their stump speeches.

The problem with this approach is it needlessly reinforces the false stereotype that Republicans are racist. Why repeat something if it’s not necessary and costs votes? Many politicians are pro-life, but they don’t say “we must stop abortion” in every speech. Illegal immigration is one of those difficult issues that would be better handled gingerly.

On the other hand, Republican politicians like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who call for a path to citizenship with liberal Democrats, are equally irking voters needlessly. McCain waffles all over the place on illegal immigration; there is no need for him to irritate the GOP base by claiming at times to support a path to citizenship. It didn’t work anyways, he received a smaller than usual share of the Hispanic vote as a Republican when he ran for president.

Jeb Bush and Clint Bolick have figured the GOP’s immigration problem out better than almost anyone. In their new book,Immigration Wars, they explain how to get at the root problems behind our immigration policy, instead of demanding a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants or focusing only on border security. Former president George W. Bush, who toned down the rhetoric on illegal immigration, won 43 percent of the Hispanic vote when he ran for reelection in 2004.

Immigration is why Cuban-Americans are the one Hispanic group that votes Republican; they perceive Republicans as less hostile. Unlike Hispanics from Mexico, Central and South America who illegally enter the U.S., Cubans who escape from communist Cuba and flee to America are offered political amnesty.

The left has already mastered toning down the divisive, throwaway rhetoric. Agenda 21 is a classic example. Instead of broadcasting everywhere that “we need the United Nations to dictate our environmental policies and living standards,” the left quietly passes regulations and laws putting Agenda 21 into place while describing it using vague and safe-sounding words like “sustainability” and “resource management.”

Asians, although not considered “minorities,” stopped voting for Republicans in 2000. Prior to that, they chose George H.W. Bush over Clinton in 1992, and Bob Dole over Clinton in 1996. By the time Obama became president, Asians were voting Democrat in overwhelming majorities. 62 percent voted for Obama in 2008, increasing to 73 percent in 2012. Asians are not typically dependent upon the government, so they should be a natural Republican constituency. Vietnamese are the only Asians who vote Republican, due to their dislike of communist Vietnam and the GOP’s strong anti-communist stance.

There are some really easy ways the GOP can attract more minorities. People identify with others who look like them. Without implementing affirmative action, the GOP should use minority Republicans to attract other minorities. Ads, videos, speaking slots and leadership positions should include qualified minorities. The GOP runs too many ads of white nuclear families. The talking head shows on Fox News are full of the same middle-aged white men and slightly younger white women. In fact, it has gotten so bad the same few commentators appear on multiple shows during the day. There is no excuse for that. With the country at 37 percent minority, there is no dearth of qualified Republican minorities.

Worldnetdaily interviewed country singer Austin Cunningham about his new song praising the pretty women of Fox News, called “The Girls of Fox News.” The song is all about how he enjoys watching them. While the young pretty women of Fox News, who are almost all white, are great for the white men watching them, they alienate many minorities who watch. Additionally, Fox News does not feature “hot men” wearing slinky outfits the way it does women, which no doubt turns off a lot of women to the GOP, another demographic the GOP has steadily been losing since the Reagan years. The GOP already has the white male vote, it’s not necessary to parade young white females on Fox News to attract them.

Part of the reason for Asians’ growing shift towards the Democratic Party is because Obama cleverly appointed a record number of Asians to high office, which was played up in Asian media. Asians make up over five percent of the population.

The Democrats have been prominently portraying minorities for years. This makes them appear more friendly to minorities than the GOP. Portraying the Republican Party as more inclusive of minorities is a freebie, it does not require compromising any principles. It is bewildering why those with power at the top do not take this one simple step. 37 percent of the population is nonwhite; why does the GOP continue to portray itself as 99% white?

Kira Davis, a young conservative black Republican, sent an eloquently written letter to RNC chairman Reince Priebus last week about the GOP’s gap in portraying minorities. Her letter begs the question, is there a legitimate reason why this beautiful, well-spoken woman is not on Fox News shows or in GOP leadership, while the same old guard is there year after year?

If the GOP is trying to attract more white male voters, it is doing a great job.

Rachel Alexander

Rachel was named the 2009 Right Online activist of the year and is a political commentator and co-editor of  She practices bankruptcy law in Phoenix, Arizona at

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook


Top Television Shows Today Full of Garbage

sxprfntyIf you stopped watching network television awhile ago because it had gotten so bad, you made the correct decision. It has continued to get worse. A few years ago, network television became dominated by cheaply made reality TV shows and talent contests, sitcoms with hyperactive manic characters, and socially liberal themes. Television has always pushed the edge when it comes to socially progressive themes. But at what point does it go too far? Perhaps when there are no other options left during prime time network TV.

The top ten most popular TV shows last fall contained few choices for traditional conservatives, unless they enjoy watching football. The first, fourth and tenth most popular shows were Sunday Night Football, Sunday Night Pre-Kick and The OT (NFL wrap-up) respectively.

The second most popular TV show last fall was Modern Family, which features the lives of three families, including two gay men and their daughter. There is profanity and one episode implied that teenage sex was appropriate. The Big Bang Theory was the third most popular show last fall. The plot is based on the lives of some nerdy guys and a beautiful woman who tries to teach them social skills. It features frequent discussions about sex including masturbation, and is sprinkled with profanity.

The fourth and ninth most popular show was a pseudo-reality voice talent show, The Voice. It features various musical artists as judges, some who are quite trashy. The sixth most popular program, the medical show Grey’s Anatomy, features a lesbian character, profanity and plenty of extramarital sex.

NCIS, which stands for Naval Criminal Investigative Service, was the seventh most popular show. It is a drama about investigating crime, and at first glance would seem to be an educational show for those considering a profession in law enforcement. Unfortunately, it contains profanity, plenty of sexual hookups and frequent discussion of kinky sexual fetishes. The Family Guy is an animated show that ranked as eighth most popular. It contains plenty of profanity. One of the children has an ambiguous sexual orientation, and a family neighbor is a sex-crazed bachelor.

The Parents Television Council (PTV) gives The Family Guy, The Big Bang Theory, NCIS, and Gray’s Anatomy their most serious rating of red, completely unsuitable for children. Modern Family is rated yellow, which may be inappropriate for children. These are just the current crop of popular TV shows; and likely not even the worst within the last 20 or so years. The profane words have become harsher in recent years, and the greatest increase in the use of them has been during the 8 p.m. Eastern “family hour” slot. PTV found that profanity on broadcast television increased 69 percent between 2005 and 2010.

Whether one has a problem with gay sexual orientation or not, why does sex and profanity need to be a theme in so many shows? TV shows with adult themes used to be accessible only on cable television or outside of primetime hours. Now, with the exception of sports shows, it is impossible to sit down with children and watch one of the top ten television shows on network TV without exposing them to sex and profanity. Many adults find the prevalence of sex and profanity offensive. Polls repeatedly show that more than half the population would like stricter controls over the profanity and sex in broadcast television. A significant segment of the population does not want to watch shows laden with gratuitous sex and profanity every evening. As a result, network viewership continues to drop every year. Last fall, ABC, Fox, CBS and NBC combined for a 9 percent drop in viewers in the coveted 18-to-49 age bracket.

The reason there is a disconnect between what people want to watch, and what gets shown, is because wealthy liberal Hollywood elites who produce the shows get to call the shots. The viewers never get an honest choice, because the money is all dumped into the elites’ ideal shows, giving them a huge advantage through advertising, prime time slots, top actors and extra bells and whistles. Most television viewers have never heard of the relatively new show Flashpoint, for example, because it was only carried by limited stations in the late evening. Featuring the members of a highly skilled law enforcement team, it portrayed serious drama that touched upon politically incorrect subjects such as mothers kidnapping their children and Islamic terrorism.

There needs to be more shows during primetime like Flashpoint and V, the science fiction series, which was good, clean, scary alien fun. Or shows like Seinfeld, which poked fun at controversial or taboo subjects instead of taking a position on them. While the influx of musical talent competitions has brought with it some cleaner material, there is no trained acting, it is merely a step above cheaply produced reality shows. Viewers are finally tiring of American Idol.

Until network TV starts reflecting a broader diversity of content, people are going to continue migrating to Facebook and Netflix instead, where they can choose their content. Add in the constant commercials on network TV, and it’s a no-brainer for viewers to make the move away from network TV. If wealthy TV producers want to remain wealthy, they had better start creating shows for those of us who don’t enjoy gratuitous sex and profanity in our living rooms every evening.

Rachel Alexander

Rachel was named the 2009 Right Online activist of the year and is a political commentator and co-editor of  She practices bankruptcy law in Phoenix, Arizona at

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook


The Sequestration Scare

sqstrtn2As predicted, the Democrats’ refusal to cut any spending other than the military only delayed the inevitable. Now, as is already taking place in Greece, France and Spain, deep cuts must take place or the government will shut down. The fiscal cliff agreement and the Budget Control Act of 2011 called for sequestration on March 1st if an agreement on how to pay down the deficit was not reached. The sequestration mandates $1.2 trillion in spending cuts across the board throughout most of the federal government over the next decade. The only way to prevent sequestration is if the Democrats and Republicans come up with a compromise this week, which could involve tax increases, agreed-upon cuts, or both.


Sequestration is nothing new, it first appeared in the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act of 1985. Yet Obama is using it to scare people and make the Republicans look bad. Obama falsely claims the sequestration was Congress’s idea. analyzed that and other statements Obama has made about the sequestration and found them to be false or half-truths.


Obama wants to frighten Americans into believing the Republicans are about to shut down government again as happened in the 1990s. If sequestration takes place, he will claim that it could have been avoided if the Republicans had agreed to increase taxes. He is hoping that by declaring sky is falling scenarios, Congress will agree to pass tax hikes and avoid making some of the cuts. This would do nothing but postpone the problem again.


Although sequestration is described as drastic cuts, it will barely slow down the rate spending is increasing, cutting just 2.4 percent of total spending. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, “It is a terrible way to cut spending, but not to cut 2.5 percent over the total budget over a year when it is twice the size it was 10 years ago? Give me a break.” Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security represent over 60 percent of the federal budget, yet the sequestration will not touch them. Sequestration is merely a band-aid that does not address the bigger looming financial disaster of mandatory entitlement spending. During the summer of 2011, it seemed like Obama was going to agree to increase the age for Medicare eligibility, but has has since backed away from that position, pressured by liberal Democrats in Congress.


While it is good the Democrats are finally being forced to make cuts, since they control the Senate and the presidency, they are in charge of picking what gets cut. A study from George Mason University projects a loss of 2.14 million jobs if sequestration takes effect, and almost half of those would come from small businesses. Obama can pick and choose which cuts to make in order to make the Republicans look bad. Last week, Obama spokesman Jay Carney warned that the Border Patrol would be reduced, allowing more illegal immigrants to enter the country.


With the Democrats calling the shots on sequestration, defense spending will take the biggest hit. Half of the cuts will be made to defense spending. The Department of Defense will be required to cut its budget 11 percent each year. More than $500 billion in Pentagon cuts will kick in automatically, including a $46 billion cut between March 1 and October 1. This is pretty drastic considering defense spending leveled off after Obama took office, unlike the spiraling costs of Medicare and Social Security. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments reports that around 108,000 defense civilian employees could lose their jobs this year if sequestration takes effect. Pentagon money chief Robert Hale warns, “Two-thirds of the Army active combat brigade teams, other than those that are currently deployed, would be at below acceptable levels of readiness. It could affect their ability to deploy to a new contingency, if one occurred, or if this goes on long enough, even to Afghanistan.”


Sequestration cuts will mean fewer federal food inspections, airport delays and government worker furloughs. Some cuts would be phased in over time, and certain items including Pell Grants, food stamps and the welfare program Temporary Assistance for Needy Families will be exempt from sequestration.


Many of the programs on the chopping block do need to be trimmed. These include grants for renewable energy research, the bloated Department of Justice with its politically motivated selective prosecutions, the Internal Revenue Service, the politically correct Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP), the overreaching Federal Drug Administration (FDA), a second welfare program for women and children, the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), and aid to foreign countries that simply goes into the pockets of ruthless dictators. The bloated Department of Education will be cut 7.8 percent cut this year, followed by smaller cuts in the future.


The sequestration should have cut more. Pell grants – free government money for students in college – should be axed. There are vast areas of waste within the Pentagon that need to be scrutinized. The Pentagon has never undergone a full audit, and continues to delay such efforts. Many government employees are overpaid and instead of temporary furloughs their salaries should be permanently decreased to market levels. Columnist Wayne Allen Root points out that “the average government janitor is paid $600,000 more over his lifetime than a janitor working in the private sector.”


This “dire”scenario is due to repeat itself again on March 27, when the Continuing Resolution that temporarily funds the government expires. As government is repeatedly forced to shrink in size, will Americans finally realize the Republicans were right about reducing the size of government, or will they continue to elect Democrats? The Democrats and liberal media have become so skilled at spinning fiscal crises to blame Republicans that the Democrats may remain in power, putting band-aids on the problem for years to come instead of fixing it.


Rachel Alexander

Rachel was named the 2009 Right Online activist of the year and is a political commentator and co-editor of  She practices bankruptcy law in Phoenix, Arizona at

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook


Where is the Left’s Outrage Over Obama’s Secret Warmongering Drone Policy?

Who would have guessed that one of the most warmongering presidents would be a liberal Democrat who was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize? Obama has gotten away with a secret escalating drone war because the left and their fifth column in the media have mostly turned a blind eye, just like they have with Obama’s expanded ground war in Afghanistan, not wanting to criticize a fellow leftist in power. Obama is not the pacifist he pretends to be. The executive branch’s escalating drone strike program has been taking place in secret now for over 10 years, all ostensibly justified by a war on terror that began on 9/11.

The problem lies not so much in using drones, which avoids the casualties of using U.S. troops, but the lack of any checks and balances on the executive branch. Oliver North made daily headlines and was forced to resign under President Reagan because of the executive branch’s unilateral foreign policy of selling arms to Iran and sending the proceeds to Nicaraguan contras. Obama is not facing the same kind of scrutiny. Sadly, even many Republicans in Congress are giving him a free pass. Liberal Republican Lindsey Graham, whose rating from the American Conservative Union in 2011 was only a 75, seems to have no problem with the executive branch unilaterally bypassing Congress.

The Obama administration claims that the September 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act gives the president the power to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against enemies connected to the 9/11 attacks. Yet Obama no longer uses the phrase “war on terror.” Is there an indefinite war that began with 9/11 or not? Obama wants the American public to think there is no longer a war on terror; meanwhile, he secretly continues and expands it. Congress is granted the power by the U.S. Constitution to declare war. If we are not at war, then there needs to be checks and balances between the two branches to conduct foreign policy

Drone strikes increased from 52 drone strikes in Pakistan under Bush to 311 under Obama. The Obama administration ordered an additional 61 others in Somalia and Yemen. The rate of drone strikes in Yemen is accelerating this year, killing at least 24 people since January. It is estimated that <href=”#document p19=”" a86186″=”">95% of targeted killings since 9/11 have been conducted by drones, an estimated 3,000 casualties. 261 to 891 civilians have died in drone strikes. The drones are launched from the U.S. and secret basesaround the world. A new secret drone base was set up in Saudi Arabia and used to kill American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in September 2011. There have been more suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban members killed by drones than imprisoned at Guantanomo Bay, yet there is more outrage over Bush setting up Guantanamo Bay – where those captured are still alive – than over Obama’s increased drone killings.

Some of these drone strikes have resulted in the deaths of key figures who opposed al-Qaeda and could have been helpful to us. Stanley McChrystal, the retired General who led the Joint Special Operations Command which oversees the military’s drone strikes, has raised concerns that the drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen are increasingly targeting low-level militants who do not present a direct threat to the U.S. The killings may be needlessly stirring up anti-Americanism in those countries.

Juan Williams is one of the few media voices on the left who has exposed the hypocritical lack of outrage over Obama’s drone policy. If a Republican president had been discovered secretly increasing drone strikes for years, without Congressional oversight and directed at American citizens, there would be incensed front-page headlines all over the country for months.

The policy gives the president the authority to immediately launch a drone attack against al-Qaeda or its associated forces. There is no oversight by Congress nor restriction against targeting a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. There is no requirement to declare war first. What constitutes an “imminent threat of violence” is left to the discretion of the president and his senior officials. Reason magazine calls the policy a “license to kill.” Former Michigan Congressman Pete Hoekstra, who used to chair the House Intelligence Committee, says it makes one branch of government the “judge, jury and executioner.” Charles Krauthammer calls Obama a “Drone Warrior” as well as “Obama-slayer” for taking out Osama bin Laden.

drn2The secret drone policy finally started getting a little attention after NBC News Investigative Reporter Michael Isikoff obtained a copy of it and Obama nominated Chief Counterterrorism Advisor John Brennan for CIA director. Brennan directed many of the drone attacks over the past few years. The administration has been reluctant to provide Congress with information about the drone attacks, not wanting any Congressional oversight. The Senate Intelligence Committee has yet to be given the full list of countries where drone strikes have taken place.

After intense pressure from Congress, Obama agreed to release a few memos from the Department of Justice. However, critics contend the memos are more to provide legal cover for his actions than reveal anything about the drone strikes. The administration refuses to give the Congressional committee’s lawyers and staff access to them.

While it is commendable the administration is trying to avert American casualties by avoiding the ground wars of the Bush administration, it should not be conducting the war on terror in secret without Congressional checks and balances. Hoekstra has it right about what Obama needs to do, “He ought to deliver the message from the president to the Congress that they will share the information and that they will let the Congress do the oversight that is necessary. The threat is real. We need to be firm — and I’m fine with the use of drones. I’m fine with targeting Americans, as long as there is an articulated process and as long as there is a check on the executive branch’s ability to do that the entire war.”

Rachel Alexander

Rachel was named the 2009 Right Online activist of the year and is a political commentator and co-editor of  She practices bankruptcy law in Phoenix, Arizona at

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook


Whatever Happened to Free Obamacare?


obmcrThe IRS issued regulations last week announcing that the cheapest insurance plan under Obamacare will cost a family of five $20,000 per year by 2016. That estimate is based on choosing the plan offering the least benefits, the bronze plan. Government employees with their heavily subsidized healthcare and those who haven’t been able to afford health insurance the last few years are in for a rude awakening when they realize how much health insurance for the private sector has increased over the last few years, especially due to Obamacare. Low-income Americans making barely over minimum wage are bitterly discovering how much their premiums are increasing.




Many people voted for Obama because they thought Obamacare would give them free healthcare. Obama told voters in 2008 that they would not be required to pay for healthcare if they could not afford it, “If, in fact, we are not making healthcare affordable enough, which is what’s happening right now, and you mandate on families to buy health insurance that they can’t afford and if they don’t buy it you fine them or in some other way take money for them.” He promised that healthcare would not be purchased without tax increases on middle class families. He claimed that Obamacare would actually reduce premiums by 14% to 20%.




Instead, premiums are continuing to increase under Obama. Over the past few years healthcare premiums for insurance through employers increased a whopping 600% more than wages. The implementation of Obamacare began in 2010, after Obama signed it into law in March 2010. In 2011, average healthcare premiums jumped up 9% to $15,073 per person annually, with employers generally paying two-thirds of that and workers responsible for one-third. This translates to about $400 monthly the average person must now pay out of pocket.




This is evidence that private insurance alternatives to Obamacare coverage are not going to be any cheaper.  Healthcare companies across the country have been applying for and getting approval to increase their rates lately, in order to keep up with the new Obamacare mandates. The reason healthcare premiums are rapidly increasing is simple. Obamacare requires health insurers to accept anyone who applies, regardless of their health problems, increasing the costs for all. This is terribly inefficient considering there are more cost-effective ways to insure those who incur high healthcare costs, such as risk pools. Most likely it was done purposely to increase the costs of private insurance so much that people choose government Obamacare instead.




Obamacare also includes numerous forced mandates that increase costs for healthcare insurance providers, such as requiring them to provide birth control. It would be cheaper to  decouple birth control from insurance and deregulate it, so adults can purchase it without a prescription or health insurance. It is so inexpensive and safe nowadays ($9 per month from Wal-Mart) that it is absurd to continue requiring basic birth control to be approved by doctors and health insurance companies, adding up administrative costs needlessly. Furthermore, why is birth control covered under Obamacare yet something as basic and important as dental care is not? Obamacare is all about picking winners and losers, rewarding feminists and cronies in the healthcare industries. It is not about really fixing healthcare.




Employees of Wal-Mart, many who make barely above minimum wage, saw their premiums increase last fall by up to 36%. Only Americans who make less than $15,302 annually, or $31,155 for a family of four, will be eligible for Medicaid to pay for Obamacare. That means unless you are making $7.35 an hour or less, you are likely going to be paying something for Obamacare. Many states have higher  minimum wages than $7.35, so someone making $9 an hour doesn’t even have the option to take a slightly lower-paying job in order to get their health insurance completely paid for.




Premium subsides will supposedly be available for individuals making up to $46,021 and families making up to $93,700, but it is not clear how much or how it will work. Subsidies for out-of-pocket costs will be available for individuals making up to $28,763 and families of four making up to $58,564, but again, it is not clear how or if the subsidies will ever really materialize for most people. Most likely there will suddenly – surprisingly of course – be no money available anymore by the time low wage workers apply for the subsidies. The states with the most efficiently run healthcare industries will be hit the hardest. Those workers who currently pay the lowest premiums will see the steepest increases, between 65% and 100%. Almost half the states have valiantly announced they will not implement Obamacare insurance exchanges, but this just means a federally administered insurance exchange will be utilized in those states instead.




Beginning in 2014, families that do not purchase healthcare insurance will be taxed (the IRS calls it a “penalty”) annually either $2,085 or 2.5% of their income. By 2016, the minimum annual penalty per person will be $695 per person. This is cruel, considering many people do not have healthcare because they cannot afford it. It also goes against principles of freedom, to force someone to buy something they do not want.




Obama promised free healthcare in order to get reelected. He knew free healthcare was impossible, but most people have short attention spans, do not remember history, and do not pay enough attention to politics to figure out that it was a lie. The next time someone complains about their insurance premiums going up, your response should be to ask them if they voted for Obama.


Rachel Alexander

Rachel was named the 2009 Right Online activist of the year and is a political commentator and co-editor of  She practices bankruptcy law in Phoenix, Arizona at

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook


Obama’s Divide the GOP and Conquer Strategy

obm-bdnObama has figured out how to force his left wing agenda through even though he was reelected with a divided country. He cherry picks issues which divide the Republican Party. The Republican Party ends up fighting within itself, diverting the public’s attention to its chaos rather than Obama’s agenda. The Republican Party is left looking unprincipled, confused and hypocritical.


Look at the most recent high-profile political battles. With the help of the complicit liberal media, Obama made extending the payroll tax cut to avoid the “fiscal cliff” one of the biggest issues. It is not a clear-cut Republican versus Democrat issue, because while Republicans are generally in favor of lower taxes, government spending is out of control. Every time the extension has come up for a vote, Republicans are split. If they vote to extend it, they look fiscally irresponsible. If they vote to end it, they look like they support a tax increase. Either way they will be skewered by both the left and the right for deserting their principles, and Obama skates away free to pursue his agenda with little scrutiny. The Democrats escape scrutiny on the payroll tax cut extension votes because they don’t claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility or friend of the taxpayers. They merely claim to stand for murky concepts like “caring about Americans.”


The latest issue Obama is dividing Republicans over is raising the debt ceiling. Naturally Republicans oppose increasing it, while Democrats support an increase in order to support their ever-ballooning social programs. However, Obama and the Democrats in Congress have figured out how to convolute the issue in order to divide Republicans. Compounding that, the liberal news media spins its coverage so that the average American does not fully understand the dynamics.


Republicans attempted to add deep spending cuts and a requirement to pass a budget to the bill, in order to get something they would never be able to get passed otherwise. The most recent bill to increase the debt ceiling limit included a provision that would freeze the salaries of members of Congress until they passed a budget. The Senate has not passed a budget since 2009, forcing Congress to pass temporary resolutions every six months. Called No Budget, No Pay, it divided the GOP. 199 Republicans voted for it, and 33 voted against it. Slightly more Democrats voted against it than for it, objecting to the No Pay provision as a “budget gimmick.”


There was virtually no criticism of the Democrats by the liberal media for opposing this common sense corrective provision. Instead, the media portrayed the legislation in the worst possible light for Republicans. Rather than characterizing it as a “forced budget” bill, the media focused instead on the part that makes Republicans look bad, increasing debt spending, calling it a bill to raise the debt ceiling.


The Republicans’ “budget gimmick” appears to have worked, since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has said the Senate will pass the No Budget, No Pay bill and finally settle on a real budget. Don’t expect the liberal media to identify this as a significant victory for Republicans. Nor will the liberal media remind anyone that this isn’t the first time Republicans achieved a victory over the Democrats by forcing a stand down vote. Republicans forced President Clinton into signing a balanced budget amendment to curtail spending by following through on a threat to shutdown the government in 1995-96.


A real budget is going to require deep spending cuts. It is easy to predict how Obama will use the budget bill to divide the GOP. He will find an area to cut that conservatives do not want to cut, like the defense budget, and make that the most important issue. Obama’s plan is to put conservatives in a catch-22 and make those who oppose the budget look like big spenders, and those who support the budget look like they don’t care about our military.


Instead of falling into his trap, conservatives have a way out. The Pentagon has a history of wasteful spending. Conservatives should figure out how to cut some of the Pentagon’s budget as well as foreign aid, which studies have shown too often finds its way into the pockets of dictators and does little to improve the economies of poor countries. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) exposes wasteful spending each year in his annual government waste reports. He should take the lead on negotiating spending cuts for the budget bill. This will help shift the focus back to where it belongs, on the Democrats who want to continue wasting our money on outrageous pork projects like the Alabama Watermelon Queen Tour, advertising for caviar, and a robotic squirrel.


Republicans need to go on the offensive and quit letting Obama dictate which issues receive the most attention and how they are characterized. Instead of “fiscal cliff” and “raising the debt ceiling,” Republicans need to use language like “going bankrupt” and “financial ruin.” Why not turn the tables on the Democrats and use their own emotional rhetoric against them? If deep spending cuts aren’t made, we won’t be able to pay teachers and law enforcement. 

Rachel Alexander

Rachel was named the 2009 Right Online activist of the year and is a political commentator and co-editor of  She practices bankruptcy law in Phoenix, Arizona at

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook


Pharisees and Sadducees of the GOP

phrs-sdcsEvery Republican knows another Republican who agrees with them on 99% of the issues, yet will attack them relentlessly over the 1% of issues they disagree upon. Instead of uniting against the left, these busybodies waste countless hours criticizing other Republicans. They will frequently do it under the ruse of being the “true conservatives,” claiming that anyone who does not agree with them is not conservative enough. Yet the 1% of issues they disagree with others on are often arbitrarily decided and not legitimate issues. Mitt Romney was criticized for being too moderate of a Republican presidential candidate, yet he ran the most conservative campaign as the Republican nominee for president we have seen since Ronald Reagan.

These “true conservatives” will tear apart other conservatives not on the issues, but on personality and connections. In Arizona, anyone who is perceived to get along with moderate Republican Senator John McCain and his ardent supporters is attacked for being a moderate themselves. McCain bullies his way around politics and most Republicans are afraid of him and his supporters, only seeking his endorsement to stay out of his crosshairs.

Sadly, this infighting results in Republicans losing races they should not have. Vernon Parker, a black Republican and former Mayor of Paradise Valley in Arizona, ran for Congress in Arizona’s new Congressional district nine last year against Democrat Kyrsten Sinema, a self-avowed bisexual who once received the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers’ Vladimir I. Lenin award for being the most far left member of the Arizona State Legislature. Several relatively unknown Republicans ran against Parker in the primary, claiming to be more conservative than him.

The “true conservatives” held two things against Parker. The first was that he had benefited from affirmative action as a small business owner many years ago. While affirmative action is not something conservatives agree with, just because someone is a recipient of it does not mean they support it. Conservatives disagree with many of the government created redistributionist tax breaks in the IRS code, but they still take advantage of them when doing their taxes. While I was working on the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative to ban affirmative action, one of the staffers told me they saw nothing wrong with any of us benefiting from affirmative action should an opportunity arise.

The other thing the “true conservatives” held against Parker is that he was listed as endorsing McCain for Senate in 2010. The McCain machine plays fast and loose with how it obtains endorsements, and will put down the name of anyone who was simply a delegate to the Republican convention as an endorser. When J.D. Hayworth entered the race to run against McCain for Senate, Parker attempted to remove the endorsement, but the McCain machine turned a deaf ear – even after Parker showed up at a J.D. Hayworth for Senate fundraiser!

Consequently, the “true conservatives” did little to help Parker in the general election. There was little activity in the blogosphere and social media by conservatives supporting him. The only Republican candidate in the race with name recognition, he had the best chance of any Republican in the slightly Democratic-leaning district. Parker is a charismatic, genuinely principled conservative who rose from the ghettos of Los Angeles to serve in high-level posts under both Presidents Bush. He lost the race by only 4%.

That wasn’t the only Arizona Congressional race Republicans lost due to purists. Republicans went from holding five out of eight Arizona Congressional seats down to only four of nine. In two of those races, the Republican candidates had very close races but were snubbed by “true conservatives.” Martha McSally, America’s first female fighter pilot, lost her race against former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ chief of staff Ron Barber by an incredibly close 49.9% to 50.1%. Iraqi war veteran Jonathan Paton lost to Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick by 3%.

The losing Republican Congressional candidates were all pro-life, pro-gun, and are considered more conservative than McCain. Paton ran in a Democratic-leaning district, which became even more heavily Democratic with a 9-point voter registration edge after the seat was redistricted last year. Even so, because he was the strongest candidate coming out of the Republican primary, his race was viewed as a tossup going into the general election.

The “true conservatives” hold Republican candidates to a standard that few could live up to. They expect Republican candidates to go beyond adherence to the party platform, and follow their dictates about who they may and may not associate with. They hold any minor indiscretion in a political candidate’s past against him or her, even if that candidate has since become more conservative over the years. Heaven help us if that candidate has a spouse who ever contributed to an odd cause or candidate!

The “true conservatives” want Republican political candidates to make far out public statements on the issues and denounce other Republicans. Yet that kind of talk is what ultimately causes Republicans to lose races. The left and its allies in the complicit liberal media have figured out how to successfully ridicule and portray Republicans who make brash statements as extremists.

As long as a Republican candidate has conservative principles, he or she should not be required to commit political suicide by pleasing a few “true conservatives” with statements better left to talk show hosts. Ann Coulter can get away with making shocking political statements, but former Virginia Governor George Allen, former Missouri Congressman Todd Akin, and former Indiana Congressman Richard Mourdock cannot.

Using the standards of the “true conservatives” today, Ronald Reagan would have never secured the Republican Party nomination. Reagan used to be a Democrat and signed the most liberal abortion rights bill in the country after becoming Governor of California. He also signed a bill making community college education virtually free. As president, he never cut social spending. Yet he is looked up to by “true conservatives” as their number one hero.

The so-called “true conservatives” hold Republican candidates to a standard that virtually no one but Jesus could adhere to. Oh wait, the Pharisees and Sadducees didn’t think even Jesus lived up to high enough standards. 

Rachel Alexander

Rachel was named the 2009 Right Online activist of the year and is a political commentator and co-editor of  She practices bankruptcy law in Phoenix, Arizona at

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook

Benghazi Betrayal May be a Cover-Up of American Weapons in Hands of Terrorists

In a scandal looking more and more like Fast and Furious, information is coming out revealing what may be the real reason why the Obama administration refused to provide military support to save Americans in Benghazi. Obama was terrified the public would find out that American weapons had been given to Libyan terrorists, who then used them against Americans in the attack.

Glenn Beck reported that Glen Doherty, the former Navy Seal who was killed alongside Ambassador Christopher Stevens, told ABC News that he was looking for weapons in Libya. Middle East expert Barry Rubin has said U.S. intelligence confirms that Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi to negotiate for the return of an American weapons’ system. Beck suspects that due to the lack of military security around Stevens, he was a CIA operative sent to bring back the wayward weapons, not just a diplomat. The terrorists may have even attacked the embassy in order to seize the American weapons stored there from the rebel-arming program.

There is ample evidence backing this up. In March 2011, Obama signed a secret presidential finding authorizingcovert help for the rebels in Libya. Although it did not appear to provide weapons, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has suggested that a U.N. resolution embargoing arms shipments to Libya only applies to weapons going to the Libyan government. In an interview with Diane Sawyer, Obama tellingly declined to say whether he would arm the Libyan insurgents.

Political analysts are calling Benghazigate a worse presidential scandal than Watergate, because four Americans lost their lives. The cover-up is so vast it seems like there are new astonishing details breaking every day. Yet until the salacious sex scandal with General Petraeus came out, the scandal and cover-up was not receiving anywhere near the attention that Watergate did.

The sudden resignation of respected General David Petraeus a week before he was scheduled to testify to Congress about Benghazigate is the most bizarre aspect of the scandal. Conservatives were flabbergasted when Petraeus defended the administration shortly after the attack, repeating what U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice had said on television about a video being responsible for the attack. Some suspect that Petraeus provided the defense as a last-ditch effort to save his job. It did not work, since he was forced to resign shortly afterwards over an extramarital affair with his biographer. This was strange, since President Clinton survived an extramarital affair that took place within the White House.

Petraeus allowed his biographer access to his personal email, which is being described as a breach of security. However, White House Counter-terrorism adviser John Brennanreportedly knew about the affair in the summer of 2011. If there was a compromise of U.S. security serious enough to force Petraeus’s resignation, then the White House let that breach of security last for over a year until Petraeus resigned a week ago.

After Petraeus was forced out over the affair, he switched his story, and on Friday told Congress that classified intelligence had been provided to the White House showing that the attack came from terrorists. It is now known that the American consulate in Benghazi alerted the White House several hours prior to the attack that they feared one was eminent. Petraeus testified that the White House withheld that information from the public, ostensibly to avoid tipping off terrorist groups.

Over two months later, the Obama administration still has not revealed who instructed U.N. Ambassador Rice to make appearances on five shows after the attack declaring that it was a “spontaneous demonstration” in response to a video. The surveillance video from the attack has not been released, even though three top U.S. Senators have written letters demanding that it be declassified. There has been no explanation why General Petraeus was not forced to resign until a week before he was scheduled to testify about Benghazi. By then, his extramarital affair had ended.

The cover-up is extremely hypocritical coming from the Democrats. The left was outraged over President Reagan secretly providing U.S. arms to the Contras in Nicaragua. The Iran-Contra hearings resulted in Reagan dismissing Oliver North from his position at the National Security Council. In contrast, there has been no fall guy losing their job over Benghazigate, even though four Americans are dead. Instead, the opposite is occurring; guys like Petraeus are ousted in order to continue to protect the cover-up. The Obama administration will stop at nothing to protect those complicit in the cover-up. As a popular graphic now making the rounds on the Internet declares, “If Obama would have defended our Ambassador like he did Susan Rice, four Americans would still be alive.”

Rachel Alexander

Rachel was named the 2009 Right Online activist of the year and is a political commentator and co-editor of  She practices bankruptcy law in Phoenix, Arizona at

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook

Obama Likely Won Re-Election Through Election Fraud

There were many factors that hurt Mitt Romney and favored Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election. The Democrats portrayed Romney in the worst light possible; as a wealthy, out of touch millionaire who wanted to return women to the 1800′s. The left wing media predictably did everything it could to perpetuate that false caricature. Obama’s race was an advantage; voters of all persuasions, particularly minorities, still cannot get over the allure of the first black president. The 47% of Americans on welfare were predisposed to vote for the food stamp president over Romney, wanting the free goodies to keep on giving, despite the long-term unsustainability.

In spite of those odds, polls indicated that Romney was going to win the election. The economy is close to Great Depression era conditions, and unemployment is almost as high as when Obama entered office. Economic conditions became so dire after Obama took office it prompted the rise of an entire new movement, the Tea Party. Presidents rarely win reelection when the economy is in the tank.

So how did Romney lose a race that numerous reputable polls and pundits predicted would be an easy win, based on historical patterns? The most realistic explanation is voter fraud in a few swing states. According to the Columbus Dispatch, one out of every five registered voters in Ohio is ineligible to vote. In at least two counties in Ohio, the number of registered voters exceeded the number of eligible adults who are of voting age. In northwestern Ohio’s Wood County, there are 109 registered voters for every 100 people eligible to vote. An additional 31 of Ohio’s 88 counties have voter registration rates over 90%, which most voting experts regard as suspicious. Obama miraculously won 100% of the vote in 21 districts in Cleveland, and received over 99% of the vote where GOP inspectors were illegally removed.

The inflated numbers can’t just reflect voters who have moved, because the average voting registration level nationwide is only 70%. The vast majority of voters over the 70% level are not voting because they want to, they are voting because someone is getting them to cast a vote, one way or another. Those 31 counties are most likely the largest counties in Ohio, representing a majority of Ohio voters. This means the number of votes cast above the 70% typical voter registration level easily tops 100,000, the margin Obama won Ohio by.

Videographer James O’Keefe, known for his undercover videos exposing left wing fraud, caught a Virginia Democratic Congressman’s son on video in October explaining how to commit voter fraud. Patrick Moran, the son of Rep. Jim Moran, told O’Keefe’s videographer that in order to make a vote for someone else, you’d need two pieces of identification, such as a utility bill, explaining, “they can fake a utility bill with ease, you know?” He went on to advise the videographer that he should also call the voter and pretend to be a polling company in order to make sure the voter isn’t intending to vote. He said that Democrat attorneys would be located in the polling places to assist him if challenged casting one of these illegal votes.

In another video, O’Keefe’s videographer tells a DNC staffer from Obama’s Organizing for America that she intends to vote in both Texas and Florida. The staffer laughs and says, “It’s cool.” The staffer then prints out a voter registration form for the undercover videographer and advises her on what to do if she gets caught.

These are just the known instances of attempted voter fraud. How many instances occurred that were not discovered? Obama’s Organizing for America looked up voters in swing states – many who would not have bothered voting otherwise – and got them to vote. How did they get them to vote? They may have given them rides to the polls, they may have offered to fill out and return their ballots for them, or they may have voted ballots for the ones who were not going to vote.

Many on the left believe there is nothing wrong with committing fraud in order to ensure Obama’s reelection. It is a common tenet on the left that the ends justify the means. Saul Alinsky, the 1960′s radical who inspired Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, taught community organizers like Obama that dishonesty is acceptable if it achieves your political goals. And when caught, Alinsky teaches radicals to deny the wrongdoing and change the topic to put their accusers on the defensive. One Obama supporter brazenly posted on Facebook that he was voting four times for Obama, asserting that the ends justify the means.

Aiding Obama’s win was a devious suppression of the conservative vote. The conservative-leaning military vote has decreased drastically since 2010 due to the so-called Military Voter Protection Act that was enacted into law the year before. It has made it so difficult for overseas military personnel to obtain absentee ballots that in Virginia and Ohio there has been a 70% decrease in requests for ballots since 2008. In Virginia, almost 30,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots than in 2008. In Ohio, more than 20,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots. This is significant considering Obama won in both states by a little over 100,000 votes.

Voter fraud has been in the works for years. At least 52 employees of the left wing group ACORN have been convicted of voter registration fraud. ACORN itself was convicted of the crime of “compensation,” paying its registration canvassers bonuses to exceed their quotas. In 2008, 36% of ACORN’s voter registrations were invalidated. Left wing political pundit Chris Matthews admitted last year that pretending to call someone from a polling company, then voting their ballot for them, has been happening in big cities since the 1950′s. He admitted he knows that kind of voter fraud takes place in Philadelphia.

Strong-arming people into voting who really have no desire to vote undermines our form of government. People do not choose to vote because they are uninformed about the issues and candidates, are lazy, cynical, or are content with the status quo. Voting someone else’s ballot for them is cheating the system and essentially giving yourself two votes.

When people claim that Obama won because the economy was improving, or because Americans generally think he is doing a good job, it is not true. He won through dishonest methods and rhetoric. Many of the votes cast in the swing states were cajoled, some legally and perhaps even more illegally, into supporting him. If voter fraud becomes acceptable, then maybe Donald Trump is right: it’s time for a revolution.

Rachel Alexander

Rachel was named the 2009 Right Online activist of the year and is a political commentator and co-editor of  She practices bankruptcy law in Phoenix, Arizona at

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook