By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

Some attribute Donald Trump winning the election to him touching on issues which most American citizens believe are most important – that America is in a financial and moral decline. But Trump’s success still doesn’t answer when, how, and what caused the decline?  

Some point out the moral decline began when a liberal Supreme Court demanded prayer and Christianity be barred from our schools, which was quickly followed with attempts by liberals to remove Christianity from all public places. When a law forbids something, most people believe the new law is put in place to protect people from harm, but nobody could possibly prove prayer is harmful to anyone. In fact, there is proof of just the opposite.  

A quick look at the Court’s decision to remove prayer from our schools and all public places was based on the lie that our Founders wanted a separation of church and state. The liberal Supreme Court Justices used misinformation to justify their intentions. The phrase “separation of church and state” was used in a letter in which Thomas Jefferson responded regarding whether one denomination of Christianity should prevail over others in America. The intended meaning was intentionally misconstrued and used as the basis for banning school prayers. The following quote by Jefferson clearly indicates his strong opinion about a nation’s need for God – proving his opinion never would have been to exclude prayer from our children’s schools.

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?”

That our forefathers embraced Christianity in the public place is easily proved as evidenced throughout our history.  Consider that Scripture verses were engraved on many of our public buildings, even those in Washington D.C.  Consider that most states mention “our creator” and/or “God” in the preamble to their state constitutions. Our early schools used the Bible for reading assignments and our early school textbooks were filled with biblical references. Most certainly, God was very much a part of America’s beginning and throughout our history.  This Supreme Court decision lacked a credible basis, it lacked historical precedence, and it was unpopular with the general public.   

No one can seriously deny our Founders were men of faith.  Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, nearly half (24) held Seminary or Bible School degrees.  Their decisions reflected the Bible they honored.  Even those who were not overt Christians nevertheless understood the importance of Christianity.  They wisely knew faith in God benefited both the people and country in a way nothing else could.  Morality is the backbone of a prosperous country.

Why did America begin abandoning all that made her great?  Who can deny our nation is in trouble when we are 20 trillion dollars in debt, our economy is faltering, jobs are increasingly difficult to find, Obamacare has become unaffordable with healthcare costs  at an all-time high, close to half of all Americans are on some type of welfare program, and racial tensions and violence have been steadily increasing rather than decreasing.

People who take to the streets to discredit and malign our brave police force are being financed by globalist like billionaire George Soros, and others, who fund groups and organizations to oppose the values of our Forefathers. Can anyone seriously deny that America has changed and is dangerously close to suffering the fate of other once great nations that lost their direction as a nation. It is true: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  It is dangerous when our elected officials believe they are above the law or that they can initiate their own laws.  Yet, there is evidence that has been happening.

It is wise to discuss the causes of the downward trend in America to get a better understanding of what and how to correct problems.  There are many who believe the catalyst for problems began with the liberal Supreme Court’s decision to legalize abortion. That law was considered the final atrocity that revealed we no longer could call America a Christian nation if we legalized killing the unborn. The Supreme  Court claimed this law was passed to usher in safe and legal ways for women whose health or well-being was endangered due to an unwanted pregnancy. The plaintiff in Roe vs. Wade lied when she claimed she had been raped.  The second intent of the Court was that abortions were to be legal, safe, and rare.  That had no teeth for possible convictions, and thus Sixty (60) million babies have been aborted in America in the last 40 years, proving abortion in our country is anything but rare.  

Those who find this number of aborted babies appalling would likely be horrified by liberal, self-admitted atheist Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood who stated: 

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”  Sanger also described Blacks, immigrants and indigents as:  “…human weeds … reckless breeders …spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”   

Those comments are hateful, and yet it is liberals who accuse Conservatives of being  insensitive because they oppose the killing of innocent lives.  Most recently, we discovered that Planned Parenthood also has been selling aborted baby parts for profit.  However, this revelation was quickly dropped by the media, a few hands were slapped for allowing the information to go public, and Sanger’s Planned Parenthood continues to exterminate the unwanted with our tax money.  Few among us have voiced our objections to a government that allows what can only be described by honest people as legalized massive murder of the most innocent and vulnerable among us. 

The fact is we all must accept a share in the blame for the moral decline of America, because we have not been vocal or persistent in our objections to the liberal changes that have occurred on a rather regular basis.  We rarely investigate all the candidates, and instead just vote based on their background, political party, and/or opinion on issues.  We pay little or no attention to those we elect once they are in office.  Most of us do not make it a priority to learn how our representatives voted on important issues that impact our lives.  Also unfortunate is that only a small percent of American citizens even know the names of their elected officials, let alone keep track of how they vote.  Even fewer hold them accountable to keep their campaign promises.   

Can we save America from the fate of other once great countries who failed and fell?  Yes!  If enough of us take the time to be educated on facts, bills, and laws so we can discover which are detrimental and then share information with those in our sphere of influence.    We must begin to talk with friends and relatives about political matters and share viewpoints, as well as call, email, or text elected officials to express our opinions.

To make America great again, we must join conservative organizations and strategize about simple ways to help make positive differences.  It is important to talk to our church leaders about informing fellow Christians of important information that impacts Christian families.  Christians want to support Godly, but they often don’t know how or where to seek information. What better place to provide information on moral subjects than in our churches with like-minded people?  

For any who doubt our nation was founded by those who knew the importance of Christianity in our lives and understood this to be the mainstay of our country’s future, I urge you to visit the website below that provides the proof.  As you read each amazing quote, consider how far America has wandered from what these astute early American leaders believed important for America.  It is why we must stay devoted to restoring our conservative values, attend the church of our choice regularly,  and begin building and restoring the values which allowed America to become a great country, with freedoms and rights many others only dream of having.

Let’s do everything possible to keep America from that last 10th step that defines the end of a free nation. We must prevent America from experiencing the horrendous fate of what happened to other once great countries who forgot the basics and lost everything.  Even if we are not successful in stopping the decline and inevitable deterioration of America, at least those of us who tried to save our country will have the sweet peace of knowing we did all we could to prevent it.  So, let us all commit do whatever possible in the months ahead to engage others in conversations about these issues while the opportunity remains and before criticism might no longer be considered a right.

The following quote from Ronald Regan, stated on October 27, 1964, is a warning to the American people of how fragile this nation is and what we must do to insure that future generations do not live tyranny: 

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.  We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream.   It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United State where men were free.”

John Adams once wrote of the new republic“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Are we still a moral and religious people? Sadly, I think we all know the answer to that question — even before the poll results were know on Tuesday, November 9th, 2016.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016


By Nancy Thorner – 

While the vast majority of Americans say that their nation’s not headed in a good direction, there’s a minority that are optimistic about the future. Indeed, author Michael Lotus believes America’s greatest days are yet to come.

Mr. Lotus draws his optimistic attitude by reaching back into this nation’s history. Although a young nation, America has survived other dark periods and has emerged stronger for them. Examples stem from the Civil War and this nation’s confrontation with the 3rd Reich (Nazi regime in Germany). After these two momentous events in the life of this nation, the economy buzzed, Americans thrived as a people, and great advances were made. 

Paramount in sustaining Lotus’ hope is a cultural formula that has remained consistent over many centuries.  This cultural foundation is technically termed the “Absolute Nuclear Family.” Lotus explained that this nation has an individualistic society, with the weakest extended family of any country in the world, making her unlike any other nation in the world. For example: In Arab-Muslim countries, traditionally the young don’t pick their own spouses. Theirs is an extremely clan-like family network. 

Lotus and crowd

That important concept was just one introduced Saturday morning, January 9, to the Women’s Republican Club of Lake Forest-Lake Bluff — now it its 75th year since its founding. Club member Hillary Till introduced Lotus, her former classmate at the University of Chicago. 

Lotus and Till

Lotus is the co-author with James C. Bennett of America 3.0, Rebooting American Prosperity in the 21st Century–Why American’s Greatest Days Are Yet to Come.  The book has been endorsed or favorably reviewed by many, including National Review Editors-at-Large Jonah Goldberg and John O’Sullivan; Michael Barone, Senior Political Analyst for the Washington Examiner; “InstapunditGlenn Reynolds; and hailed as an “intellectually ambitious and accessible work” by The Washington Times.

America 3.0: has two sub-title: “Rebooting American Prosperity in the 21st Century and “Why America’s Greatest Days Are Yet to Come.” Mr. Lotus prefers the latter sub-title, believing that America’s greatest days are yet to come despite this nation’s high unemployment level, the existing low trust by the American people for established institutions, and how senior citizens have been impacted negatively because of low interest rates, etc.

Reasons to be Positive

The Absolute Nuclear Family foundation gave rise over the centuries to a political culture in England then in the USA. That political culture is expressed in three important American documents:

  • U.S. Constitution (described by Lotus as “a perfect code that doesn’t need to be edited”).
  • Declaration of Independence.
  • Northwest Ordinance – an achievement of Thomas Jefferson in 1787.  It established clear property rights, which were very important.  Without them nations remain poor.

English-speaking people have created wealth and innovation based on their practice of finding the most talented people they can find to build something, such as when starting a business, rather than relying on relatives.  At the same time it is not a utopia, and complaints that America can be a cold or lonesome society have some basis in fact. 

This nation has the ability to assimilate people unlike anywhere else in the world.  As such we shouldn’t panic at allowing a certain number of immigrants to come to America.  (The author took exception with Mr. Lotus on immigration. Lotus never clarified specifically whether he was speaking about illegal immigrants, those of refugee status, or those who wait for years to enter this nation legally.) 

Defining 1.0 and 2.0 America 

America 1.0 was described by Mr. Lotus as the society of our Founding Fathers, one of small scale, local government and based on agriculture.  People were free but poor.  It was based on muscle power, since machine power had not been invented.

The transition to an America 2.0 first began to be visible in the Northeast before the Civil War. The introduction of steam power began to change the entire economy and society. It was the Civil War, particularly the mobilization of men, war material, and money required that created the initial outline of America 2.0.  It was those of the Civil War generation (those who weren’t killed) who are credited as the true founders of 2.0.  The change was not without pain, as big cities grew and politics became corrupted.  Just as now, it was perceived by the American people that our nation’s Constitution had been undermined, and that America’s best days were behind her.  But America got through that transition successfully.

The railroads enabled people and goods to move more freely.  Factories sprung up and required lots of people doing things in a systematic way in order to achieve huge returns.  The automobile replaced the horse and carriage. With the development of transportation suburbs were built, offering the American people a quality of life which only the wealthy had enjoyed before.

From its onset America 2.0 required some centralization.  More rules and regulations were needed for the huge influx of people from farms into cities.  Change led to the development of a progressive political movement which took several generations to affect change.  The political framework for America 2.0 happened with the election of FDR and his “Great Society.”  Social Security came into being which led the American people to believe that government would take care of their retirement years.

In retrospect, mid-20th century America looks like a Golden Age.  Big Business thrived. WWII was won and prosperity returned to this nation.  The building of suburbs exploded where families could have their own homes and yards.  Our grandparents, and the World War II generation, built the America we grew up in, which was a very great country in its day.

Another important achievement of 2.0 were technological advances such as the Internet, which allows instant communication, and can be considered the beginning of America 3.0.  

Transitioning from 2.0 to 3.0

The transition from 2.0 to 3.0 is already underway.   The big government of today will eventually have to fail, for unable to keep its obligations, default is inevitable.  The American people will experience pain as the government sector shrinks, but hopefully the cuts demanded will be made as as painlessly as possible.  Mr. Lotus called for an open and transparent reduction of government, which he called “The Big Haircut.” 

We can only speculate what America 3.0 will bring. Lotus suggested the following things as likely:

  • Already self-employment is the growing sector. This trend will continue.
  • The factory floor will no longer require thousands of people showing up for work every day, but will exist everywhere.
  • The Internet will allow individual to work at gigs rather than at set jobs.
  • 3-D printers will create no waste. Everything manufactured will be made to exact dimensions.  
  • Driverless cars will especially help those who are no longer able to drive:  10 years when a typical woman can’t drive a car; for men it’s 6 years.  Commute time will become productive time.
  • Robotic technology will become common place.
  • Technology like BitCoin may replace money.
  • Education and healthcare, now dominated by the government, will crumble, and be replaced by competitive industries offering many choices.
  • Genetic engineering for body parts, etc.
  • DNA manipulation

As changes come and are integrated into society, the cost of living will go down.  

As with electronic devices whose technology is increasing at a rapid pace, to be fully accepted requires a generation who grew up with it and take it for granted before it become universal.

Mutineers needed with personal, moral courage

Although bad things will continue to happen during the transitional period, Mr. Lotus fervently believes that only when the situation becomes bad or oppressive enough will enough people rise up to demand change.  This seems to be happening now, as millions of Americans are saving NO to establishment presidential candidates from either party in favor of candidates who are considered outsiders. The change from 2.0 to 3.0 must allow the creative powers of the American people to be realized and developed, despite a government machine that doesn’t want this to happen.  It doesn’t help that we live in a “creepy state” where government has the capacity to spy on us.  It will require political will to rein in this threat and subject it to lawful control.

Lotus enjoined all present to act as mutineers, keeping in mind that the spirit of freedom still exists within the American people to resist and reject submission, and that the nuclear family is still the norm when the American people are given that choice.

The conservative inclination is to go back to something considered more pleasing, perhaps to the 1950’s?  Some conservative even try to romanticize America 1.0, but you can never go “back” to anything. Both political parties have become corrupted. It will take personal moral courage to fix something as bad as it is now.

George Washington and the Founding Father were willing to roll the dice and make change happen.  The signers of the Declaration of Independence risked their lives knowing they could be hung as traitors. 

Like those who risked death in Colonial America, as America 3.0 struggles to be born, activists and concerned citizens must take the lead, even if the personal risk is not so great. If they don’t others will do so in their absence, and the America of the future will not be as good as it should be and can be.  The conditions are in place for change, given the excesses and the flaunting of our Constitution by our government and by cronies who benefit from it.  We must be ready to seize the day.



By Nancy Thorner and Bonnie O’Neil – 

Most Americans would agree that liberty and freedom are values fundamental to our nation, but, if questioned, do they really know the intent of their meanings, or have they changed through time?  David Hackett in his book, Liberty and Freedom: A Visual History of America’s Founding Ideas, shows how liberty and freedom form an intertwined strand that runs through the core of American life. But like DNA, liberty and freedom have been transformed and recombined with every generation. Hence, the earliest colonies shared ideals of liberty and freedom may have evolved into different meanings today.

According to David Hackett, a historian at Brandeis University:

“Most Americans do not think of liberty and freedom as a set of texts, or a source of controversies or a sequence of controversies or a system of abstractions.  They understand these ideas in another way, as inherited values that they have learned early in life and deeply believe.”

The words themselves have differing origins: the Latinate “liberty” implied separation and independence, while the root meaning of “freedom” speaks of attachment, such as the rights of belonging in a community of free people.  In that the root meanings of freedom and liberty are not merely different, but instead are of two opposing concepts — separation vs. connection — it stands to reason that tension between the two values has been a source of conflict and creativity throughout American history.

In “Lincoln about freedom”, Lincoln, when speaking in Chicago in July of 1858, voiced how two different but incompatible ideas could be called “liberty”, further noting the second definition as tyrannical in nature.  Lincoln viewed liberty as the cornerstone of the Republic as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.  To Lincoln, liberty, work and justice were closely connected concepts.  Lincoln reflected that the world has never had a good definition of the word liberty.  Lincoln believed that each individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleased with himself and the fruits of his labor, also realizing that others used liberty to mean for some men to do as they pleased with other men and the product of their labors.    

Seventy eight years prior to Lincoln’s Chicago liberty remarks, on Christmas Day, 1780, Thomas Jefferson, author of the “Constitution,”  proclaimed his “Empire of Liberty” concept, thus laying out the principle foundations of a very important concept of liberty.

Jefferson believed it was the United States of America’s responsibility to the world to promulgate freedom and liberty wherever possible.  America’s example would assure all people everywhere that they have the ability and right to determine their own lives and commerce without being coerced by brutal despots.

Although Jefferson’s “Empire of Liberty” laid out a vision of an internationalist America as opposed to a provincial one, Jefferson did warn against America becoming involved in “entangling alliances”, an argument often invoked by American politicians when they oppose aiding those seeking to democratize their countries.

Present day obstacle to Liberty and Freedom

Liberty allows each of us to achieve what we might of our lives.  As stated by Lord Action:  “Liberty is not a means to a higher political end, it is itself the highest political end.”  Matt Kibbe in his book, “Don’t Hurt People and Don’t Take Their Stuff,” takes a stand for individual liberty, laying out what we must do to preserve our freedom.  In a nutshell, simple and straightforward, Kibbe describes liberty as:  “Don’t hurt people, and don’t take their stuff.” 

Continual decisions made in Washington, D.C. about what to do for us, to us, or even against us, are having an adverse impact on the lives of the American people, young and old. Gradually our freedoms are removed, one intrusive law after another, and always with the excuse it is for our own good.  Men must be able to have the liberty to make their own choices, without a “nanny” government deciding what is best for everyone.  We must wean those in society who have become entrapped in a “cradle to grave” dependence upon government.   James Madison proclaimed, “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation.”

Young people can’t find jobs, millions of Americans are losing their health care plans; ones they were promised have not materialized.  We are all being targeted, monitored, conscripted, induced, taxed, subsidized, regulated, and otherwise manipulated by someone else’s agenda, all based on someone else’s decisions made in some secret meeting or closed-door legislative deal.

Usurping of Constitution threatens Liberty and Freedom

Obama wasn’t bluffing when he smugly declared, “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone.”  President Obama has already acted unilaterally on a wide range of issues, both domestic and foreign, with or without constitutional authority or congressional approval. It was never the intent that any president have the authority to ignore Congress or make and change laws through Executive Orders, and certainly not out of frustration due to an opponent’s refusal to roll over and approve his agenda.

Obama’s actions constitutes an alarming rise of one-man rule and the erosion of the once cherished concepts of liberty and freedom as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.  More than in prior times, Democrats are invariably placing their party’s interests above those of the nation and also above the law. Illinois Senator Dick Durbin noted that a year had passed since the Senate passed a sweeping immigration reform bill, and urged House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to bring a similar bill to the floor of the House with the warning:  if he does not, the president will borrow the power that is needed to solve the problems of immigration.”  

Senator Durbin seems to have forgotten it is the duty of the different branches of government to be independent in their judgments when they examine bills, so that each bill is thoroughly examined from different perspectives before being approved into law.  Rushing through an important and controversial bill such as changing our immigration law invites problems. The Affordable Care Act, among other recent examples, provides the proof.  Could many of the resulting problems we are experiencing today be the result of our elected officials not even reading the bills they sign, but instead “rubber stamping” them depending upon their political party leaders’ orders?      

The present crisis of children from Central America crossing over our southern border, is an example of the President’s abuse of authority, with heartbreaking results.  Congress refused to pass the DREAM Act, and rather than work with those who had different opinions, Obama side-stepped Congress and issued an executive order to implement important provisions of it.  That sent a signal to Central American countries that children would be allowed sanctuary when they crossed over into America. 

In a victory for religious freedom, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday, June 30, 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. in the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (formerly named Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby). The case was the strongest legal challenge to Obamacare since 2012.  However, before Conservatives become too excited, it must be noted the decision was a “one vote” victory demonstrating the strong division within the Supreme Court.  

As education involves children and America’s future, under Common Core liberty has been scrubbed as a founding principle.  How could this be when liberty has such a strong, historical significance for Americans. Liberty equates to personal freedom and the right of citizens to live their lives without the intrusion of tyrannical government. 

Why the concern?

It is not surprising that according to a Gallup international poll released Tuesday, July 1, Americans have become significantly less satisfied with the freedom to choose what they want to do with their lives. This is a 12-point drop from 2006, which pushes the United States from among the highest in the world in terms of perceived freedom to 36th place. 

What has caused this alarming change in our population?  There are many causes to consider.  The federal government has gradually taken power from the states, while giving more authority to the federal government and even the United Nations.  We see the evidence of that in the changes United Nations Agenda 21 has brought to our states.  Individual American freedoms are being forfeited based on a United Nations agenda.

The erosion of our freedoms has concerned citizens searching for ways to reverse that trend by examining the reasons for the changes.  Some blame our elected officials, as many of them seem to lack the courage and convictions of our forefathers.  Rather than make decisions they know are best for America, they choose to take the easy course and follow the crowd.  They should consider this quote from John Quincy:  “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” Others blame liberal professors dominating classrooms across American with their socialist/communists socialist/communist doctrine, infecting their students with anti-American rhetoric.

An interesting suggestion for the decrease in America’s love for freedom, comes from writer Kenneth Minogue, who in his book “The Servile Mind:  How Democracy Erodes the Moral Life”, says that “traditional societies and totalitarian states in the twentieth century suggested that many people are, in most circumstances, happy to sink themselves in some collective enterprise that guides their lives and guarantees them security.”  That is believable knowing that almost half of our nation now receives some type of government assistance. Having left a corrupted government, our forefathers fled to America in a quest and passion for freedom, the chance for every man to make his own way; to be a master of his own life.  We must not let that spirit die. 

Calling all patriots to make voices heard!

Independence Day is the perfect time to remind ourselves of the amazing history of our country, to consider the men and women who allowed America to prosper.  Let us reflect upon the wise patriots who have dotted our history and changed our lives through their devotion to America.  We would do well to heed their wisdom, because not all of the changes we have recently seen in America have been profitable.   We may need to reflect upon our past for examples of courage and self-reliance.  Our schools must promote the ideals of patriotism, and allow students to know and value our history.  Our children should be proud of our nation, and that will happen as they review our history and recognize the gift they have been given; a gift that must be guarded for our future.

Dinesh D’Souza’s new film, “America,” released in theaters on July 2nd, has a real chance to help shape the future of our nation.  It is a movie that all should be encouraged to see, young and old alike, to be reminded that America is the world’s brightest hope for the future.  The film combats the destructive progressive ideology that seeks to undermine and abolish some of America’s founding ideas.  Check out the trailer here for “America.” 

Will this nation remain great?  Can it even be saved.  It is up to Americans who love their country to make their voices heard.  This nation stands at a crossroads.  Will liberty and freedom remain alive and be enjoyed by Americans now and in our future, or will we wander into the dangerous territory of a tyrannical government?  Americans must be vigilant; seek, find, and vote for the candidates who best represent their ideals and those of our forefathers.  Do not be fooled by rhetoric over actions or promises over facts.  America’s future depends upon the actions of patriots, who are vigilant.  Patriots can be found from sea to shining sea, and we suspect all who read and agree with the points in this article are a part of that prestigious group.  Together, we can make a positive difference. 


By Nancy Thorner and Jane Keill –

Information about the attack has rapidly changed in the past weeks, and so has the Obama administration’s positions on it. The real story about what happened at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi in which four Americans were killed just gets worse and worse. Not only did Barack Obama and his team perpetuate a lie for nearly two weeks as to the cause of the attack, but in breaking news, we are now learning that during the attack, Americans called out for help, and were denied any assistance.

For several weeks, in an effort to write an article that would relate our frustration and dismay over the lack of transparency and honesty that has been forthcoming from the White House since the 9/11 Benghazi terrorist attack, we asked ourselves this question: What if we pretended to interview Barack Obama about the Benghazi attack whenever more news surfaced, asking him questions through a series of fake interviews?

We would further relate, continuing in our “Let’s Pretend” mood, that although the President agreed to sit down with us, he refused to answer any of our questions, except for one answer, “The attack was caused by an inflammatory video that was insulting to Muslims.” Beyond that, he wouldn’t say anything.

Our imaginary interviews with President Obama ended on October 25 so our thoughts could be set down to submit to Illinois Review. Little did we know that on Thursday, October 26, these new revelations would surface through Breaking News by way of Fox News:

“Sources who were on the ground in Libya, ready and available for military action during the attack on the U.S. consulate, were told to ‘stand down’ rather than to help the ambassador’s team. When shots began to be heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11, the CIA denied approval of action despite multiple requests.”

It is outrageous that the mainstreet media refuses to hold the President’s feet to the fire, instead it elects to play footsie with the President.

Four years is a long time for this nation, its people and the world to live with a Commander-in-Chief and a President who can’t be trusted.

In our series of pretend conversations with Obama, we would ask these questions:

Before the attack:

1. The President of Libya, Mohammed el-Megarif, says he advised you three days in advance that there were possible attacks coming up for the 9/11 anniversary. Did you receive those warnings? What did you do in response to them?

2. What steps did you take to protect our properties and interests around the world before the anniversary of 9/11?

3. What steps did you take specifically in Libya?

4. Are there Marine guards at all our embassies? If not, why not?

5. Do all our Marines have bullets in their guns? If not, why not? Who made this rule?

6. How many full intelligence briefings did you attend in the week before the attack in Libya?

7. Did you know that Ambassador Chris Stevens would be in Benghazi on 9/11? Did you warn him there might be an attack there on 9/11?

8. Did you know Ambassador Stevens personally? Did you know Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, the Navy Seals who were killed with him? Did you know Sean Smith, the foreign services officer who was also killed?

9. Did you write personal letters of condolence to each of the families of the victims?

Immediately after the attack:

1. When, how and by whom, were you told about the attack? Was this a ‘3 AM’ phone call?

2. Why after the attack, did you go to Las Vegas for a fundraiser? Why did you not stay in Washington and try to find out what had happened in Benghazi?

3. Why, in the days after the attack, did you go on the David Letterman show, party with Jay-Z, Beyonce, Anne Hathaway, Jerry Springer, have your picture taken with a pirate and go on The View? Do you think it was Presidential to do that?

4. Was Sufyan ben Qumu actually involved in the attack? (He’s the Gitmo detainee who was released in 2007 to Libya after we were assured he would remain in prison.)

5. Was Al Qaeda involved in the attack?

6. Ever since you ordered the death of Osama bin Laden, you insisted you would not ‘spike the football’ about it. Yet at the Democrat convention and thereafter, you, Biden, Axelrod, Clinton and many others, have constantly chanted, “Osama’s dead and General Motors is alive’. How did this contribute to the anger that Muslims around the world feel about the USA and perhaps lead to the deaths of our four Benghazi representatives?

During the weeks after the attack:

1. Why do you think the Muslim rioters in various countries were chanting ‘Obama, Obama, we’re all Osamas!”

2. Five days after the attack, UN Ambassador Susan Rice (come on now, you didn’t know she was our Ambassador to the United Nations, did you?) went on all the Sunday talk shows and repeated over and over again that the attack was the result of the nasty movie mentioned above. Was she lying?

3. What instructions did you give her to tell about the Benghazi attack?

4. What did you tell Hillary, David Axelrod, Biden, Jay Carney and everyone else to tell as the ‘story’?

5. Why did you go to the United Nations on September 27 and continue to insist that the attack was the result of the nasty movie?

6. Why did you and Hillary make a tape and have it played all over Pakistan that blamed the attack on the nasty movie?

7. Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State and our embassies are under her direction. What was Hillary’s responsibility in this?

8. When you were asked during an interview if Egypt was an ally or an enemy, why could you not answer the question?

So, it really was a terrorist attack:

1. Although early on it had become pretty evident that this was a terrorist attack, possibly with Al Qaeda connections, why was it eight days before your administration began to admit that?

2. If it was a terrorist attack, why did you not have Amb. Susan Rice return to the Sunday talk shows, and retract her earlier statements? Will you fire Rice for lying to the American public about the source of the attacks?

3. Why did you and Hillary not make another video for Pakistan and the rest of the Arab world to retract your insistence that the nasty movie caused the attack?

4. Shortly after the assault, CNN was able to get into the scene of the attack and found the journal of Amb. Stevens. In it he said he was worried about his safety. You said the FBI had been sent to begin a thorough investigation into the attack. Why did CNN find this journal and not the FBI?

5. Why was the FBI still in Tripoli while CNN and the Washington Post were able to get into the US compound in Benghazi and collect consular records and material?

6. Recent news reports also indicate that the State Department was contacted by the Libyan US embassy before the attacks with a request for more protection in US enclaves there. These requests were reportedly turned down. What has been Hillary’s explanation for turning down these requests?

7. On September 28th, the American news media were finally reporting the attack was a coordinated terrorist assault. What information about this did you have before 9/28?

8. Why did the FBI just get to Benghazi on October 5, and only stay 24 hours and then left again? Was there nothing left to find after 3 ½ weeks?

9. What happens when the Harvey Weinstein movie ‘Seal Team Six’ is shown on 11/4, two days before the election? The movie trumpets your giving the order to kill bin Laden and ‘spikes the football’ about your part in his death. What plans do you have if riots break out all over the world because of this movie? After all, look what happened all over the Muslim world when they were upset about the nasty video that caused the Benghazi attack. What effect will riots all over the Muslim world have on your possible re-election two days later?

More recently, the news about the Benghazi attack seems to have something new every day. We continued to interview Obama and he continued to refuse to answer):

1. Several security officers from Libya and the State Department have testified before a House investigation committee that they gave multiple early warnings about other recent attacks in Benghazi. When were you told about this information?

2. These witnesses have also indicated they made multiple requests for additional security for Libya and were turned down. Why were they turned down?

3. If money was the reason additional assistance was not sent to Libya, how do you justify the money spent on buying Chevy Volts and building a charging station for them at our Embassy in Austria? Couldn’t we have used some of that money in Libya for security?

4. Why has your Press Secretary, Jay Carney, not been able to give a straight answer to questions at press conferences? He keeps changing your position on this issue.

5. At the recent Vice-Presidential debate, Joe Biden stated that ‘We did not know of any requests for more security in Libya’. In view of all the additional information and testimony that has come out, why did he say this?

6. David Axelrod, from your campaign, was on Fox News Sunday on 10/14, and he said all questions about the Benghazi attack should be addressed to the State Department where this type of issue is handled. Was he throwing Hillary Clinton under the bus? Was he trying to save your skin for you?

7. Why did Hillary throw herself under the bus by admitting responsibility for the handling of the attack? Why did it take her almost five weeks to realize the State Department is in charge of this type of thing?

8. Will you ask for Hillary’s resignation as Secretary of State? If not, why not?

9 Why did she make this admission just before your second debate with Romney? What did you discuss with her about this acknowledgement and the timing of it?

10. During the debate with Romney, you insisted that you talked about ‘terror’ attacks the day after the Benghazi assault, and indeed you did mention ‘terrorist attacks’ in the Rose Garden, but it was in a much broader context than the Libya raid. Even moderator Candy Crowley admitted that – after the debate, of course.

If you thought it was a terrorist attack in the Rose garden the day after it happened, why did you and Hillary and Susan Rice and Axelrod and Jay Carney and Biden all spend the next two weeks insisting Benghazi was the result of the nasty video about Muslims? Why were you so confused about this?

As of October 25, 2012, the Benghazi attack continues to play in the news:

The CIA station chief in Libya reported that within 24 hours of the attack, he had sent a message indicating the attack was the result of militants and not because of a mob.

1. CBS and Reuters have released evidence that e-mails that detailed the first few hours of the attack were sent to all pertinent parties in your administration, including the White House situation room. What did you know about these e-mails and the information they contained?

2. Some of these e-mails reportedly said the attacks were planned and were terrorist attacks. If you had this information within hours of the assault, why did you, Hillary, Susan Rice and most of your administration spend the next two weeks telling everyone from the news media to the UN to Pakistan that the attack was the result of the nasty video?

3. According to various news reports, the battle at Benghazi lasted between 6-7 hours. Reports also indicate that US drones were sent over the area to observe what was happening. If this is true, why didn’t you send in military reinforcements or a rapid response team (from Italy or Spain) to give assistance?
Did you do anything to try and rescue our Ambassador and the other Americans under attack?

4. If the drones sent images over the satellite network, were you able to see what was happening? If you could see what was happening, why didn’t you send help?

5. Even as you, Mr. President, continue to vow that the perpetrators of the Benghazi consulate attack will be brought to justice, the man identified by witnesses as a ringleader in the attack continues to walk the streets of Libya without fear of arrest. Ahmad Abu Khattala has admitted being at the consulate during the horrific attack but has yet to be questioned by any Libyan authorities.

He has spoken to a New York Times reporter from a hotel patio as he sipped a strawberry frappe and mocked the US and Libyan governments. The FBI, when it was in Libya, did not talk with him. If the NYT could find him to interview, why haven’t your people found him? What is the status of the investigation? What have the Libyans done about it?

6. Will the investigation of the attack be completed before the November election? Oh, of course. What was I thinking? Never mind.

Realizing that any coverup attempts are many times worse than the actual “crime” itself, if and when we do decide to continue our pretend interviews with President Obama, the following two questions would head our list:

1. Mr. President, how did you think you could get away with spinning a story for weeks about Benghazi that exonerated the White House from all blame in what was known from the beginning as an organized terrorist attack? Why, instead, did you and your administration cling to the spontaneous attack script prompted by what was an obscure video?

2. Mr. President, was it your purpose to have the American people believe that the threat from Al Queda was over with the capture of Bin Laden and that knowledge of the Benghazi terrorist attack would have shattered the misconception you have presented to the American people?

Now might the mainstream media do its job by asking questions in real time of President Obama? To start with: “Mr. President, there seems to be so much more information that is available than you are telling us. It’s clear that you knew a great deal more. It’s also clear that you have been lying to us since the beginning. From the information we do know – from public sources – we can only draw the following conclusions:

-If you were warned beforehand that something was astir in Libya and you did nothing to forestall or prevent it, then you were grossly negligent and derelict in your duty to our overseas delegations.

-If you didn’t know anything was coming, you should have anticipated that something was likely to happen on the anniversary of 9/11, and should have been prepared for it.

-If you received information from the early messages and the drone images and the requests for help during the attack and you did nothing to try and assist the people in the Benghazi consulate, then you are utterly responsible for the deaths of four Americans and you should resign immediately. Their deaths are on your shoulders.

The American people deserve the truth before Nov. 6th!

Sunday, October 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM | Permalink

Lie, Deny and Misdirect – Anything but the Economy

Obama1By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold –

There is continuing concern about the dis-articulated response of the Obama administration over the “Arab Spring” situation, as there should be.

Nevertheless, blaming the upset on a 14 minute youtube “film” on the Internet is proving to be a case of misdirection to the American people over what in reality has become the Obama administration’s failed one-size-fits-all policy approach to dealing with the 22 countries in the Arab and Muslim world. The administration’s hopeful “Spring” vision of establishing better relations with the Arab and Muslim world has vanished, if the vision ever existed at all, leaving in its wake an administration struggling to find its footing and a unifying strategy to quell the present havoc created when dictators were dislodged and  seismic-like shifts took place in the region’s politics.

The present unrest caused by Obama’s failed Mideast policy, coupled with failures in past administrations to deal firmly with the region, will continue to reap the terrorism it has spawned with no end in sight.

There is, however, a current issue that can be explored and clarified, also involving a disputed video, in which Governor Romney seems to be dismissing 47% of the voters when he referred to the 47% as believing they were entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to-you-name-it.

Having seen as much of the video as has been published, it is clear that Governor Romney was responding to a question over campaign tactics, not policy. With limited time and resources, a candidate must devote the most effort reaching those voters who might be persuaded, and less time to those devoted to a particular candidate. You won’t see much campaigning in Illinois from either side – Illinois is bought and paid for by the Democrats.

It is clear, from Governor Romney’s record, that he is a compassionate and generous person, with his own time and money as well as in leadership. With close editing and media spin, one is led to quite another conclusion. As usual, the pundits’ version of Romney’s speech bears little resemblance to his actual words. It seems that reporters build on what others have said, rather than refer to the source. This is a classic “straw man” strategy – misrepresent Governor Romney’s position, then beat the false premise down in a one-sided debate.

Consider the source of the Romney video. Jimmy Carter’s grandson helped leak the Romney fundraiser video, filmed in secret and kept under wraps for months.  Although other Romney candid statements had been floating around on-line in bits and piece for three months, it didn’t hit the big time until it was published by David Corn at Mother Jones today.  Carter, who toils on-line as an opposition researcher, searches for clips on Republicans almost every day.  Having worked with Corn before, it was just “a natural fit” to connect Corn with the mysterious up-loader of the clip in the hope that his tip could potentially affect the outcome of the election (and get his a job).

Sorry Mother Jones, but what Romney said in your secret tape is pretty much on par with he has been saying all along while campaigning.  It is also in keeping with the government dependent class Obama has created since taking office, despite Obama’s promise of JOBS, JOBS, JOBS during his 2008 campaign and promises during every State of the Union Address to laser focus of JOBS.

The truth is that people dependent on the government for handouts tend to vote for the party or candidate which promises the most payout. Likewise, no candidate can promise to increases taxes and expect support from those people affected.  How else to explain how Obama has a positive approval rating and is tied/ahead in the polls garnering 45-47%?

Is Governor Romney guilty of class warfare? How often does a guilty man accuse others of his own perversion? An example of this tactic is the promise by President Obama to raise the taxes on a privileged few, made in order to garner the votes of a significant minority.

The fact that 47% of the population pay no income taxes is a side issue which needs to be put to rest. It is a mistake to characterize all as people with “no skin in the game.”  Many are retirees, whose income is too low, or otherwise exempt from taxation. Some are working poor, whose deductions exceed their income. Only a fraction of them are dependent, in part or in whole, on direct government benefits.  They do need a safety net.

It can be duly noted without exaggeration that 40% of the 47% would probably vote for Obama even if we had a Depression, believing America is an entitlement society and that they are victims deserving of entitlements from a government that is charged to take care of them.

As far as writing voters off, didn’t Obama write the white working class off a long time ago when he chastised folks who “clung to their Bibles and guns.”

Even Fox News at first seemed to drink the liberal Kool-Aid but is now coming to grips with the facts. Paraphrasing a line by Jack Nicholson in the movie “A Few Good Men,” we can’t handle the truth.

When speaking to Fox News on Tuesday, September 28, Romney, to his credit, didn’t back away from what were secretly recorded and leaked video remarks casting supporters of President Obama’s as being more dependent on welfare.

Romney on Fox News:  “This is the message I’m carrying day and day out and will carry over the coming months. “This is a decision about the course of America, where we’re going to head.  We’ve seen the president’s policies play out over the last four years.”

An analysis by Damian Paletta and John D. McKinnon on Tuesday, September 18 in The Wall Street Journal, The Data Behind Romney’s 47% Comments, is an interesting read and explains how this nation got to the point where almost half of American households pay no income tax.

Stated by Paletta and McKinnon is a finding that no clear partisan split was found to exist among beneficiaries, especially for recipients of federal retirement (SS) and health-care programs (Medicare).

Receiving monthly payments from S.S. with Medicare as her primary insurance, has Nancy Thorner really paid for these benefits or earned them?

Not according to the Supreme Court’s 1937 Helvering v Davis decision, which decided that taxes collected under the label of Social Security or Medicare cannot be earmarked for those expenditures.  As a result Thorner hasn’t really paid for those benefits, nor earned them.  She receives these benefits based solely on her status as defined by law, as do millions of other Senior Citizens.

Entitlement and Earned Benefits:  The Supreme Court, in Helvering v Davis (1937) as defined:

“The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.” They also held that Congress can decide how revenue can be spent for the public good, including for various social benefits, without violating the Constitution.”

Governor Romney could mitigate damage and strengthen his position by calling out to citizens to vote for the best candidate for the country, not merely the one who promises to to deliver the most loot; to create jobs so that hard-working citizens can afford to pay taxes; to reward achievement rather than punish it.

A message to MItt:  Be positive – be pro-active – be as specific as possible without denigrating a class of citizens (or appearing to do so). They may never vote for you, but they will still be citizens, many in need, if you win.