Skewed Horizon

Christopher G. Adamo

By: Christopher G. Adamo

Dear Governor Romney,

With the suspension of Senator Rick Santorum’s campaign, it now appears that you have the 2012 Republican presidential nomination sewn up. And in the current climate, that should assure you of a victory in November. Yet the wrong strategy might still result in all of your recent primary wins being rendered irrelevant by year’s end. A Republican campaign based on a flawed perception of the real nature of the electorate (a historical failing of the GOP Establishment) could secure a second term for Barack Obama where none of his empty promises or leftist theatrics would ever prevail.

You say that you do not intend to set your “hair on fire” to impress anybody. Well you should realize that something in your campaign needs to catch fire. If the enthusiasm of those desiring to rid the nation of liberal socialism were in any way matched by a passion to see your particular campaign succeed, you would win in a landslide. Grassroots America flexed its muscle in 2010, and no amount of liberal activism, even when abetted by thoroughly jaundiced “coverage” from the liberal media, can undercut the momentum of the “grassroots.”

Sadly, this phenomenon was disparaged by the very Republican “Establishment” whose political fortunes most directly benefited from it with almost the same degree of contempt as it received from liberal Democrats. You may recall who it is that comprises the GOP “Establishment.” They are the same people who brought us the candidacies of Bob Dole and John McCain, and who convinced George H.W. Bush, on the heels of his 1988 victory, to discard the tenets of Reagan and opt for a “kinder and gentler” brand of governance in place of Reagan’s staunch conservatism.

If you still cling to the notion that straddling the political middle is somehow a more enlightened approach to politicking, consider the significance of “Reagan Democrats” in the Gipper’s 1980 and 1984 landslide victories. These people were inspired to cross the political aisle by something higher, and not merely cheaper, than that offered by the Democrats. Try as you might, you will never find any evidence of “McCain Democrats” or “Dole Democrats” who were similarly motivated by fence-sitting Republicans.

More significantly however, though the nation suffered gravely from those misbegotten GOP efforts at “broadening the base,” the dismal results they reaped were nonetheless reparable. This is no longer the case. America is at a critical crossroads, and the people on Main Street fully know it. If the onslaught of socialism and statism is not reversed immediately, the destruction of the American ideal may be permanent.

Perhaps this assessment sounds exceptionally harsh. Well it is. Barack Obama and his minions have embarked on a course that portends disaster for America, and an honest political appraisal of their goals, and the damage they have already done, will affirm as much. Softening the depiction, whether to avoid being perceived as confrontational or to appeal to the political “center,” is to be less than forthright with the American people.

Strident criticism and severe assessments of horrendously flawed political philosophies must not be reserved for the likes of Rick Santorum. If it is proper for you to characterize other Republicans, with comparatively conservative records, in that manner, should it not therefore be permissible to warn America of the looming dangers of the far-leftist ideology and seditious inclinations of Barack Obama with equal passion?

With the nation currently facing crippling deficits and a total national debt that has ballooned in recent years, the people of the Heartland have no stomach for nuanced political diatribe that decries socialism implemented by the federal government, but then struggles to defend its viability at the state level. America can forgive the transgression of Romneycare in Massachusetts, but only if we can be assured that the cancer stops there. Attempts to avoid the full repeal of Obamacare will rightly be construed as a complete betrayal of the American people every bit as egregious as the unconstitutional and unconscionable destruction of private health care in this country by the current Administration.

No less can be said of the other liberal efforts to remake America, or the malicious promises by such individuals as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, to oppose the conservative agenda of any Republican President. It is not possible to maintain one’s principles and work in a conciliatory manner with such people. Their intention is to dominate the political landscape, and subsequently wield their accrued power to implement a vile and dangerous agenda. It is no virtue to accommodate them in this effort, either by collaboration or passivity.

Ultimately, you must abandon any notion of achieving “bipartisanship.” Democrats only ever resort to this platitude when pressuring our side to “cave” on important issues, or to get us to share the blame for the mess they have made. We do not want a president who can “reach across the aisle” or “find common ground” with a party whose leaders actively seek the destruction of traditional America, and whose moral compass is so perversely skewed that they consider such a goal “honorable.”

At no time in recent history has the impending threat of out-of-control liberalism posed so great a danger to the nation. Consequently, the need for a truly principled and courageous conservative leader, unswayed by a desire for acceptance from liberals in the “mainstream” media, is paramount. America does not want you to “feel our pain.” We need you to rescind those policies which are causing so much pain across the land. This cannot be accomplished by a political course rooted in “moderation.”

Finally, you need to thoroughly understand that it is not up to Barack Obama to make you look good. And though he has lately been doing a decent job of presenting you as the superior alternative, it is assured that this will change in the final days before November 6, when he will suddenly tack to the middle. At that point, your only hope is to have remained so unshakably principled, which means conservative, that he cannot believably posture to your right.

Heartland America, and particularly your staunchest conservative critics, are diligently looking for reasons to rally to you. But they will abandon such an effort if that means forsaking conservatism or ignoring the real dangers liberalism poses to this country.

So, for the sake of this nation, all of the ideals it embodies, and all of the promise it has offered, seize the opportunity now presented to you and use it, not in a futile quest to ingratiate yourself to the liberal media and “bipartisan” D. C. political establishment (if you will excuse the repetition), but to fight the good fight and bring America back from the brink.

Sincerely,

Christopher G. Adamo

A Wyoming Conservative

Truly Evil

He had the “audacity” to say something like this when he was running for president:

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child.

That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.

Barack Hussein Obama

THE NATIONAL DEBT IS NOW NEARLY 16 TRILLION DOLLARS!!

Obama took out a credit card from the bank of China, and has raised the debt & trillion dollars by his lonesome.

Christopher G. Adamo

By: Christopher G. Adamo

James O’Keefe has struck again. And once more, he deserves a medal for his heroic operation. In 2009, he and an accomplice, Hannah Giles, laid bare the rampant criminal activities being perpetrated nationwide by ACORN, the subversive network of leftist activists whose seditious political work had previously remained largely under the radar. As a result of that exposure, ACORN was forced to officially disband and reorganize, though its activity is ongoing.

This time, O’Keefe spotlighted the epidemic of deliberate vote fraud that liberals have promoted throughout the country in recent years, and which portends the destruction of its foundations if not soon confronted and corrected. And though O’Keefe did not take his sting operation directly to the Department of Justice, by making his case so profoundly, he essentially put the nation’s highest law enforcement office on notice that it will be held accountable for its action, and perhaps more so for its inaction when presented with such incontrovertible evidence of rampant criminal malfeasance at the voting booth.

By now the account of O’Keefe’s stunning maneuver has been widely retold. In short, he went to the very polling place where Eric Holder (Barack Obama’s Attorney General) would vote, and proved that current voter identification and verification practices are so inadequate as to permit O’Keefe to accept a ballot and vote in Holder’s name, had he a mind to do so. This is particularly incriminating since it is Holder who has done more than any other high official to purposefully undermine the voting process in this country.

Beginning with his contemptible decision to ignore the flagrant acts of voter intimidation perpetrated by members of the “New Black Panther” organization in Philadelphia in 2009, Holder has an unbroken track record of choosing to overlook criminal behavior based not on the real substance of the law or the nature of any breaches, but on whether or not the liberal agenda will be served or harmed by a strenuous legal response.

J. Christian Adams, formerly an attorney at the Voting Rights Section of the Department of Justice, eventually left his position and wrote an expose on the racial motivations which completely poisoned the department on Holder’s watch. In his book, he grimly warned America that the end result of this violation of trust, if not appropriately addressed, would be “lawlessness.”

In like manner, O’Keefe rendered proof positive that organized hordes of illegal “voters” can significantly skew the results of elections throughout the nation, just by claiming the identities of registered voters in those particular districts. And to nobody’s real surprise, Eric Holder is the most vigorous champion of maintaining the present system just as it is, while seeking to disparage and discredit O’Keefe.

Amazingly, Holder can apparently remain totally oblivious to flagrant crime if it serves his interests, while summoning an uncanny ability to concoct misdeeds where none have occurred. For just as resolutely as he refused to concede perpetration of crimes by the New Black Panthers, he fiercely pursues the ostensible possibility of “voter intimidation” elsewhere in the nation, absent any credible accusations from disenfranchised voters, but instead based on the premise that merely requiring legitimate identification might result in such.

So while the “Justice” Department cannot bring itself to protect white voters, who were criminally prevented from voting in Philadelphia, it is in hot pursuit of those “lawbreakers” in the state governments of Texas and South Carolina who want proper identification from would-be voters in their jurisdictions. In truth Holder is not bothered by the illegal activities of “New Black Panthers” since they do not threaten the advance of liberalism, but efforts to keep the polling places honest and upright clearly endanger the aspirations of the political left.

What could possibly be the motivation of the Justice Department in such circumstances, other than to insidiously seize control of the ballot box, and thereby predetermine the outcome of the nation’s elections? Or perhaps more accurately, can any other reasonable explanation be offered in defense of this flagrantly biased and ideologically driven course of action?

Meanwhile, it is necessary to recall Holder’s other malignant attack on state sovereignty, and the very ability of states to maintain their integrity. In April of 2010, Arizona passed a law requiring the verification of identification of individuals caught in crimes who might possibly be illegal aliens. Of course, this resulted in an incredible outcry from every subversive group seeking the eradication of America’s borders. Before the law could take effect, Holder led the charge to have it overturned. Most incredibly, his premise was that Arizona’s effort to reduce the flood of illegals infringed on the jurisdiction of the federal government which, of course, would do nothing to improve the situation.

Since that time, Holder has taken similar action against Alabama, where a comparable measure was signed into law in 2011. Again, the DOJ premise is that states cannot interfere in a matter that it claims to be under federal authority. And in keeping with the betrayal of Arizona, Holder’s Department is unwilling to lift a finger to alleviate the influx of illegals into Alabama.

After Barack Obama exposed the nation to the ugly realities of liberalism in 2009 and 2010, Democrat political fortunes tanked, culminating in the rout of the Democrat controlled Congress in 2010. Since then, Barack Obama’s approval ratings have plummeted, and prospects for a rally are looking increasingly bleak. With the jobs market continuing to languish, energy costs skyrocketing, and America’s standing in the world dropping to historically low levels, it seems increasingly unlikely that an open and honest election will benefit the liberals. So of course they are looking for ways to affect the ballot box through stealthy and dishonest tactics. And as abhorrent as this prospect may be, it is far worse that an election victory gained in such a manner would mark the end of any possibility that real America could ever again triumph through legal and peaceable means.

Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming. He has been involved in politics at the local and state level for many years. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

Christopher G. Adamo

By: Christopher G. Adamo

Theories abound as to the motives and significance of Barack Obama’s April 2, 2012 tirade against the United States Supreme Court. Perhaps the most plausible, given the timing of the events, is that one of the “justices” sympathetic to the Obama regime leaked word that the Court had struck down Obamacare in large part, or in full. In response, Obama could be attempting to publicly stay ahead of the court, since its decision will not be officially announced until June.

Of course, the primary suspect in this scenario is Elena Kagan, the newest member of the court. It may seem pejorative to suggest that she could so flagrantly compromise the integrity of her office, except that by remaining involved with the Obamacare court case, she has already done just that. Having stumped for Obama’s massive governmental power grab as his Solicitor General, she can by no means be objective in her current position. Yet she flatly declined to recuse herself from the case. So regardless of whether or not she actually divulged last week’s decision on Obamacare, the Court as it currently exists is in a wholly compromised condition.

Nor was the outrageous commentary on Monday the first effort by Obama to wage war on the Supreme Court and all of those irritating constitutional limitations to his power that it currently represents. In the wake of his latest rant, many are recalling how he used the 2010 “State of the Union” message to disparage the Supreme Court for ruling against Campaign Finance “Reform.” Yet his latest outburst reveals something much broader in scope and far more sinister than an episode of mere jockeying for power between two branches of the United States Government.

Long before his inauguration, Barack Obama made clear his intentions to expand the reach and power of government beyond any former boundaries. In truth, this was the real essence of the “hope and change” rhetoric of his campaign. He and his kind are convinced they can usher in utopia, but only if they are first able to amass the power to forcibly make it happen. To their dismay, the framers of the Constitution did not imbue their kind with that degree of unfettered authority.

So, in response to these circumstances, a sinister strategy was implemented to garner just such a capability. In rapid succession, every governmental office under Obama’s dominion began to exceed its boundaries and ignore any limits to its authority. Suddenly, the Environmental Protection Agency was redefining its mission by implementing changes to environmental law through regulation, with no legislative authorization or oversight. Meanwhile, the “Justice” Department essentially legalized voter intimidation, as long as such acts were perpetrated by minorities against white America.

Although in the past these excesses would clearly have been construed as illegal abuses of power, it soon became painfully obvious that the “mainstream” media had no intentions of holding the liberal perpetrators accountable. Instead, they consistently ignored such contemptible actions while focusing like a laser on any critics of the administration, with a goal of wholly discrediting them.

However, to the general dismay of leftists, the public has responded by becoming informed and involved. Mainstream America is now alert to such mainstays of the liberal agenda as “judicial activism,” and the dangers to liberty and constitutional law it represents. Consequently, the ability of unelected judges to make or abolish law, merely by subjugating it to their personal opinions, while remaining unnoticed and avoiding criticism is a thing of the past.

In particular, the confirmation hearings of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito re-emphasized, and to a major degree reaffirmed the fundamental role of a Supreme Court Justice in upholding the principles of constitutional law, and not exploiting the office as a means of dictating personal policy to the masses. Assuming office within a few months of each other during President George W. Bush’s last term as president, Roberts and Alito were able to brave the onslaught of liberal attacks and smear campaigns intended to thwart their confirmation by continually refocusing divergent questions from Senate liberals on their constitutional merits, or lack thereof.

In contrast, the confirmation strategies of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Obama’s two leftist appointees to the Court, were predictably centered on gender and ethnicity, with little consideration given to their total lack of objectivity in past adjudicating. While the intent of conservatives is to ensure that the courts preserve the integrity of the Constitution as it is reflected in the nation’s laws and judgments, the goal of liberals is to advance liberalism, through whatever means they can.

Against this backdrop, it is imperative that Barack Obama and his political cohorts dissipate any spotlighting of the Constitution as the definitive standard by which the merits or pitfalls of a law is determined. In its stead, the unquestioned worthiness of liberalism must be substituted. Hence, Obama has on numerous occasions sought to essentially redefine “judicial activism” in the minds of his minions as any opposition to his agenda.

Monday’s comments, whether based on leaked information or merely the general paranoia that characterizes all aspiring authoritarians, represented a brazen effort to diminish and discredit the court on the basis that its only legitimate option is to rubber stamp Obamacare. In essence, he attempted to marginalize the Court in the eyes of the American people by dismissing any opinions it delivers which do not coincide with his own.

We have seen this Alinskyite pattern in the past. When unable to endlessly engage in wanton spending sprees under the auspices of government funded “stimulus” for the economy, Obama misrepresented the proper congressional oversight of federal spending as evidence of a “dysfunctional” Congress. In response, he promised to remedy the situation by sidestepping the Congress.

With each passing day, Americans are given further examples of their options for the nation’s future, which will be determined by who they decide to install in the Oval Office next January. Despite Attorney General Eric Holder’s subsequent attempts at “damage control,” Barack Obama’s statements stand, and their ramifications are inescapable.

Threats against the Supreme Court from an arrogant and narcissistic radical, based on that court’s potential decision to preserve and defend the Constitution, foreshadow similar threats against every citizen who, whether at the ballot box or by the exercise of free speech, dares to do likewise.

Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming. He has been involved in politics at the local and state level for many years. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

Here’s proof that the Dems fix elections.

Naturally all claim innocence. Well, the prosecutor is Michael Dvorak – a Demon-crat, so don’t expect much “investigating.”

Surprised that Obambam’s tongue didn’t catch on fire when he tried to quote scripture in order to reinforce his criminal behavior? When he mentions Luke 12:48 to claim that people who have more money are expected to give more, he fails miserably. First, that scripture refers to children of God, not communists. It refers to gifts given and used in the service of God, not in the service of communism. Some other anti-American blathering politician tried using the same quote for the same purpose. Sorry. Even if it did mean wealth redistribution, it would mean among Christians, not Satan’s children. And, he forgot to mention that the Bible also says that if you won’t work, you won’t eat. Just as much out of context, speaking of Christians, but if you’re going to go Bible dipping for your evil purposes, dip some more.

Jesus was not a Marxist as the two are mutually exclusive. Any goofus that read Marx, Lenin, Stalin and mob knows that a primary goal of communism is to erradicate not just religion, but especially Christianity because virtue stands directly in the path of Obambam’s dirty agenda. Read it for yourself. When early Christians sold SOME of their goods as need arouse, it was for fellow Christians, not for the dead.