Washington Times

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro declared today in the right-wing Washington Times that the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre do not deserve a vote in Congress.

Citing the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down Washington D.C.’s ban on handguns, Shapiro claimed that the federal government has no authority to make any laws regulating guns.

However, the Manchin-Toomey bill that was just blocked by a GOP-led filibuster wouldn’t ban any guns. It would simply expand background checks for gun purchases. The Heller opinion also makes clear that lawmakers are able to enact certain regulations on firearms.

It seems Shapiro is upset about a bill that would ban all guns that was never proposed in the first place.

But that doesn’t stop him from attacking Obama for having “exploited the Sandy Hook tragedy by riling the emotions of already distressed parents and families, giving them false hope” and engaging in an “abuse of power.”

“The president is determined to launch a police war against American citizens for legally purchasing U.S.-made firearms for self-defense,” Shapiro writes. “Mr. Obama should stop exploiting the families of crime victims just to further his unconstitutional gun-control agenda.”

Even more strikingly, Shaprio says that it would be “just as unconstitutional to ask Congress to ban free speech, establish a national religion or reinstitute segregation.”

I don’t believe the families of the victims from the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn., deserve a vote.

It may sound harsh and uncaring, but even the greatest tragedies are not a valid reason to disregard the Supreme Court and the Constitution of the United States. If they were, our free speech and our rights against unreasonable search and seizure and against self-incrimination would have all been abolished long ago amid every crime wave in American history.

Five years ago, the Supreme Court settled the issue of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, making it clear that guns in “common use” were constitutionally protected. Nevertheless, President Obama recently flew several family members of Sandy Hook victims to Washington on Air Force One to pressure congressional legislators to enact new gun laws.

…

Congress creates laws, the president enforces laws and the courts are a check and balance to decide if those laws are constitutional. Since, under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land,” the voice of the Supreme Court is the final word on any legal issue not Congress, and certainly not the president.

It’s a relatively simple principle, but one that Mr. Obama doesn’t seem to understand or care about. He seems to think the tragic shootings of innocent people at Sandy Hook is a justifiable excuse to completely disregard the Supreme Court and the Constitution. In places such as Chicago and Washington, D.C., thousands of innocent people have also been killed during times when comprehensive firearms bans were in effect. Don’t those families deserve a vote as well?

At every possible turn, the president has exploited the Sandy Hook tragedy by riling the emotions of already distressed parents and families, giving them false hope, convincing them they deserve a vote on an issue he knows has already been settled by the Supreme Court, a vote he knows would be unconstitutional and a vote that, short of a constitutional convention to repeal the Second Amendment, would be illegal.

It would be just as unconstitutional to ask Congress to ban free speech, establish a national religion or reinstitute segregation. That’s not leadership, nor is it compassion. It’s deceitful and preys upon broken families, who are lost in grief.

The president knows there is no chance of constitutionally expanding firearms regulations beyond minor changes, such as universal background checks. If the president has any common sense, he also knows that registration laws and universal background checks will accomplish almost nothing, since they will not obstruct criminals from getting illegal guns on the black market, just as they always have.

Everything Mr. Obama is doing to lessen the criminal use of firearms is counterintuitive to what makes sense. Instead of targeting criminals with illegal firearms, the president is trying regulate law-abiding citizens who buy legal firearms. Instead of waging war against Mexican cartels for trafficking millions of illegal guns into America each year, the president is determined to launch a police war against American citizens for legally purchasing U.S.-made firearms for self-defense.

Mr. Obama is wrong to say that if we can save one child’s life, we should do “everything” we can in our power. However, abuse of power is a dangerous thing in a constitutional republic.

Mr. Obama should stop exploiting the families of crime victims just to further his unconstitutional gun-control agenda.

Despite the tragic circumstances of what happened at Sandy Hook, pain, sadness and desperation are never a reason to jeopardize freedom and liberty. The families of Sandy Hook victims deserve sympathy, but they do not deserve a vote from Congress on a matter that has already been decided by the Supreme Court. The Constitution, not compassion, must remain the currency of our country’s lawmaking process.

Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy dedicated his Washington Times column today to a letter demanding another investigation into the attack at the US Mission in Benghazi. The letter relies on debunked conspiracy theories and Gaffney amusingly argues that “this is not an effort to settle political scores:

It has been nearly eight months since jihadists attacked U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed, and many more were badly injured. That is pretty much all we know for sure about an incident that has let’s face it been subjected to the most comprehensive and successful cover-up in modern political history.

Now, 700 heroic special operations veterans have written an open letter to Congress calling for the creation of a new investigative committee to establish the truth. They want to know, in particular, why warriors like them weren’t allowed to aid our countrymen in their hour of need.

…

This is not an effort to settle political scores. Neither the Democrats who run the Senate nor Republicans who run the House have conducted the needed “full accounting.” What is required is more than just a postmortem on a national security debacle, however.

…

As one of the SOF community’s most revered leaders in both war and peace retired Army Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin, put it recently: “I have seen men take great risks to save a fellow warrior. I have even seen men die trying to do so. The lack of accountability regarding the Benghazi event disturbs me greatly and bears the earmarks of a cover-up.

“America is entitled to a full accounting of this egregious attack on our people with some explanation as to why there was no effort to save the Americans in [Benghazi] or at least to recover their bodies before they fell into Libyan hands. Our Congress has yet to fulfill its responsibility to provide a complete analysis of the attack or to provide answers as to what exactly happened. A bipartisan special committee is needed to determine the truth about Benghazi.”

The leader of the group which issued the letter, Larry Bailey, is a longtime Obama critic and an unapologetic birther.

But that isn’t a problem for Gaffney, as he too is a birther.

As for Boykin, the former general and current vice president of the far-right Family Research Council initially claimed that David Petraues resigned his position at the CIA not as a result of his affair but because he was about to expose Obama, who was blackmailing him, for “covering up” the Benghazi incident and “reached a point where he was unwilling to continue spouting the party line [on Benghazi] to the American public and continuing to breach his own integrity.”

Of course, that never happened and Boykin was completely wrong.

But that is one of Boykin’s tamer conspiracy theories, as he also believes that Obama won the election as a result of a plot by an international “cabal” led by George Soros and is creating a paramilitary force through the health care reform law to take control of America.

The Washington Times’ stringently anti-gay columnist Jeffrey Kuhner is out with a new piece today warning that gay equality will result in “moral anarchy and social disintegration.” According to Kuhner, “the homosexual lobby” is being advanced by the “modern-day fascists” of the judiciary, who seek to bring about “liberal fascism.”

“Their lifestyles and behaviors inevitably lead to a culture of death,” Kuhner writes. “Homosexual behavior — for example, sodomy — is unnatural and immoral.”

He goes on to write that a gay rights victory at the Supreme Court “will be calamitous for democracy and the family” as it would bring about “social intolerance and secular McCarthyism,” such as hate speech laws, and exacerbate society’s “cultural decay and moral decadence.”

The homosexual lobby is on the verge of a historic victory. The potential consequences will be calamitous for democracy and the family. It will usher in a brave new world marked by cultural decadence and judicial tyranny. Traditional America will be smashed — probably forever.

…

They are seeking to impose a social revolution from above. Their weapon: the courts. The attempt to roll back Proposition 8 represents a fundamental assault on our democracy. In 2008, the voters of California decided in a free and fair election to retain the historic — and real — definition of marriage as the union between a man and a woman. The referendum passed with nearly 53 percent. Blacks and Hispanics supported it by large majorities. The electorate spoke. Instead of respecting the vote, however, the homosexual lobby has sought to overturn the will of the people. The courts then nullified the election pending the appeal process. It is now in the hands of the high court.

This is a national tragedy — and shame. Democracy is being subordinated to judicial imperialism. The right of self-government is being supplanted by the rule of unelected and unaccountable elites. It is liberal fascism masquerading as judicial review. Wearing black robes does not give judges the justification to repeal an election. Judges are becoming modern-day fascists, unilaterally wielding state power to trample on legislative prerogatives, democratic freedoms and basic social institutions. We are slowly ceding power not to a single dictator, but to a gang of legal oligarchs — ideological leftist activists who are legislating from the bench.

If five Supreme Court justices can reverse Proposition 8, then popular elections will be rendered meaningless. We are sliding toward a post-democratic age. This is the inevitable logic of secular liberalism. Moreover, homosexual marriage has nothing to do with “tolerance” or ending “discrimination.” It is about legitimizing the homosexual lifestyle, compelling society to embrace a radical new morality.

Same-sex marriage is a contradiction, an oxymoron. It is an attempt to redefine reality and human nature. Marriage is the basic institution of society. Its very definition (and essence) is the sacred union between a man and a woman. Its fundamental aim — and the reason for centuries it has held a special status in Western civilization — is to produce, raise and socialize children. It is the social conveyor belt by which one generation is passed on to the next. Destroy the family, and with it goes the glue holding society together.

Homosexuals cannot have children naturally. Their lifestyles and behaviors inevitably lead to a culture of death — the absence of any future human life, the fruits of a marital union. Liberal activists have been trying desperately to suppress a fundamental truth: Homosexual behavior — for example, sodomy — is unnatural and immoral. This is why it has been historically considered a grave sin in Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Even deists, such as Thomas Jefferson, believed sodomy so violated public morality that those who practiced it should be castrated.

Yet, by claiming that marriage is a “civil right,” pro-homosexual activists are hoping to portray same-sex marriage critics as intolerant bigots. In fact, their objective is to import the “hate speech” laws common in Europe. This leads to social intolerance and secular McCarthyism, whereby the Bible is viewed as hate literature for its opposition to homosexuality.

…

Liberal logic on the issue inevitably paves the way for moral anarchy and social disintegration. If marriage is a civil right, then anyone — including polygamists, bigamists and pedophiles — will demand that they be allowed to form unions. In fact, this is already taking place in Europe, Canada and Brazil, where same-sex marriage has been legalized. The push for homosexual marriage is a symptom of cultural decay and moral decadence. It reveals a civilization unable or unwilling to defend its most vital institutions. This is why many Americans innately know its wrong. It’s why the homosexual lobby has to crush dissenting voices. The cost, however, is the sabotaging of our democracy.

Washington Times columnist Jeffrey Kuhner is using Pope Francis’ election to attack President Obama as an “enemy of the church” who is “waging a war on Christians and on Catholics in particular.” After making the false claim that “Obamacare encodes the federal funding of abortions” and charging that “homosexual ‘marriage’ is a Trojan horse aimed at smashing the family — an invention by cultural Marxists to undermine Christianity’s ancient foundations,” Kuhner maintains that Obama’s policies contribute to a “culture of death.”

Pope Francis is the opposite of a modern American liberal. In fact, he probably finds much of the Democrats’ agenda repulsive. President Obama is waging a war on Christians and on Catholics in particular. His administration is compelling Catholic institutions — schools, hospitals and charities — to provide free birth control and abortion-inducing drugs to employees. This directly assaults Catholics’ conscience rights and freedom of religion. Obamacare encodes the federal funding of abortions. The health care overhaul forces devout Catholics to hand over their taxpayer dollars to fund a procedure they find not only a moral abomination, but a religious prohibition.

Mr. Obama supports homosexual “marriage.” He has allowed homosexuals to openly serve in the military. His pro-homosexual, pro-abortion and pro-contraception policies violate basic Catholic doctrine. He is an enemy of the church.

Contrary to liberal spin, Pope Francis is an orthodox Catholic. His election to the papacy consolidates the theological legacy of Blessed John Paul II and retired Pope Benedict XVI. The Holy Father is walking in their spiritual footsteps. He opposes the secular West’s culture of death. He is a moral traditionalist and cultural conservative. He denounces the mass murder of unborn children. He bravely criticizes homosexual behavior, decrying sodomy as unnatural and immoral. He eloquently defends the sanctity of the family from the onslaught of homosexual “marriage” and homosexual adoption.

Unlike shallow secularists, Pope Francis grasps that civilization depends upon one seminal institution: the sacred marital union between a man and a woman. The purpose of marriage is not cohabitation or affirming some romantic commitment. Rather, it is procreation — having, raising and socializing children. The family is the basic unit that perpetuates one generation to the next. Destroy it, and social collapse is inevitable. Homosexual “marriage” is a Trojan horse aimed at smashing the family — an invention by cultural Marxists to undermine Christianity’s ancient foundations.

This is why Pope Francis publicly challenged the national socialism of Argentine President Cristina Fernandez. Her leftist policies — legalizing homosexual “marriage,” providing free contraception to the public and enabling homosexuals to adopt — are slowly transforming Catholic Argentina. He courageously stood up to her. For this, he has been demonized by the authoritarian Peronist regime.

• For all you thespians out there, Tea Party Patriots wants you to star in their latest movie as someone either standing “in line at the Food Distribution Center to receive your ration of food” or witnessing “SWAT team arrests some member of the resistance who are protesting the big government control.”

• Rick Scarborough of Vision America is angry that “we’ve got an administration that has progressed at lightning speed to an all-out militant assault on marriage.” 

• Family Research Council is thrilled that Rick Perry and Texas Republican lawmakers have called on the Boy Scouts of America not to lift its ban on gays.

• Jeffrey Kuhner of the Washington Times argues that Obama is a weak president who is “asleep at the wheel” while at the same time a powerful “socialist autocrat.”

• Alan Keyes warns American elites will not be satisfied “until all are burning in the lake of fire, nourished with bitter ashes.”  

• We have the sneaking suspicion that Ronnie Cohen of Reuters did not want his article titled: “Poll Shows Sodom and Gomorrah Traits in Calif.”

Retired Adm. James A. Lyons took to the Washington Times today to push the burgeoning Homeland-inspired conspiracy theory that John Brennan, President Obama’s nominee to lead the CIA, is a Saudi secret agent.

The theory was first cooked up by John Guandolo, a former FBI agent who resigned from his job after he was charged with having an affair with a star witness in the corruption trial of former congressman William Jefferson, among other improprieties. He has since made a career promoting anti-Muslim conspiracies.

In the Washington Times, Lyons writes that Saudi Arabia’s “recruitment of Mr. Brennan to the ideology of Islam” makes him a security risk.

“It’s interesting that no counterintelligence alarm was triggered at the time that this alleged conversion was occurring,” Lyons writes. This could, of course, be because there is no proof it ever happened. But Lyons supposes, “Most likely, that’s because at that time the sophisticated Islamic objectives driving the global jihad movement by the Muslim Brotherhood were not understood by those who witnessed his ‘conversion.’”

Lyons goes on to claim that Brennan has a “track record of empowering the Muslim Brotherhood both domestically and abroad” and “allowed the jihadist enemy access to the highest level of government,” such as in his meetings with “terrorists like Nihad Awad.”

For the record, Awad is the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Two key national security nominations by President Obama are up for confirmation following Congress‘ recess this week: former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel to be secretary of defense, and John O. Brennan, the president’s key counterterrorism adviser, to be the director of the CIA. Both candidates have had to address issues based on their past and current activities and associations. Troublingly, a number of questions still remain unanswered.

One explosive issue is a report by John Guandolo that broke last week on Tom Trento’s “TrentoVision Show” and also was carried by Glenn Beck on Feb. 11. The report stated that Mr. Brennan was converted to Islam while CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia from 1996 to ‘99. Let’s be clear: In America, a man’s religion can never be a condition to his holding a government position. It is protected by both the First Amendment and Article 6 of the Constitution. Therefore, even if it is true that he converted, Mr. Brennan’s religion should not be an issue.

However, according to Mr. Guandolo — a former SWAT team leader at the FBI, counterterrorism and Muslim Brotherhood specialist and Marine platoon commander — what should be an issue was the Saudis’ targeted recruitment of Mr. Brennan to the ideology of Islam while he was serving as the CIA station chief in Riyadh. This was not just a conversion but a political act by a foreign intelligence service.

If verified, this would indicate Mr. Brennan’s susceptibility, whether witting or unwitting, to manipulation by a foreign intelligence entity. It’s interesting that no counterintelligence alarm was triggered at the time that this alleged conversion was occurring. Most likely, that’s because at that time the sophisticated Islamic objectives driving the global jihad movement by the Muslim Brotherhood were not understood by those who witnessed his “conversion.”

As Clare Lopez, from the Center for Security Policy, has pointed out, our counterintelligence defense system is broken. The Muslim Brotherhood’s core threat doctrine — the ideology of Islamic jihad and Shariah law — is seen as benign. Mr. Brennan’s activities as the president’s top counterterrorism adviser have been at the forefront in the Muslim Brotherhood effort in the United States. The Brotherhood has succeeded in convincing the U.S. government to remove from official documents and training curricula all references to Islamic doctrine, Shariah law and scriptures that relate them to terrorism. Further, scheduled lectures on the true threat from Islam have been canceled, and instructors have been barred from future presentations.

Mr. Brennan’s track record of empowering the Muslim Brotherhood both domestically and abroad allowed the jihadist enemy access to the highest level of government under the stealth guise of “nonviolent outreach partners.” For example, terrorists like Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations who has been linked to Hamas; and leaders from the Islamic Society of North America, unindicted co-conspirators from the Holy Land Foundation trial in 2008, work with national security staff providing input to U.S. counterterrorism strategies. That is hardly comforting.

It cannot be denied that U.S. policy on Islam, Shariah law and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular has undergone a sea change during the time Mr. Brennan has had influence on our national security. Certainly, Mr. Brennan cannot be confirmed until a full vetting has taken place.

Washington Times writer Jeffrey Kuhner in his column today claims President Obama is responsible for the country’s deficit, and uses some interesting calculations to get to that result. For instance, Kuhner counts programs like SNAP (food stamps) and Social Security as Obama’s own socialist creations. Of course, SNAP and Social Security were established long before Obama took office.

Kuhner also said Obamacare is a budget-buster, clearly ignoring the study by the Congressional Budget Office which found that Obamacare reduces the deficit. He calls on Republicans to wage a “frontal assault” on Obama’s “anti-American, socialist” agenda which “poses a mortal threat to the republic’s long term survival.”

Liberals love to bash Mr. Bush. Their mantra is that Mr. Obama inherited a mess. Hence, the president is not responsible for his fiscal recklessness and unprecedented deficit spending. For liberal Democrats, it’s George W. Bush’s fault: The expensive bill for two unfunded wars, a large tax cut benefiting primarily the wealthy and a prescription drug benefit has come due. Mr. Obama is simply paying — and unfairly being blamed — for it.

This argument has one seminal flaw: It’s false. Mr. Obama’s policies have driven deficits and public spending to unprecedented peacetime heights. The government now spends nearly 25 percent of gross domestic product — considerably higher than the average post-World War II norm of 20 percent. Furthermore, the president has created Obamacare. It is the largest and most expensive entitlement program in 50 years. His trillion-dollar economic stimulus, billions of dollars in green-energy boondoggles, and an explosion in the use of food stamps, Social Security disability and unemployment benefits have led to massive government expansion. His goal is to erect a European-style social democracy. A bloated Franco-German welfare state is not only interventionist, but it is also costly — way too costly.

…

It’s time Mr. Boehner and congressional Republicans waged a frontal assault on Mr. Obama’s welfare liberalism. The country’s very prosperity is at stake. The House speaker should hold a press conference, surrounded by fellow Republicans, and challenge Mr. Obama to publicly state what he says in private: America does not have a spending problem. If the president genuinely believes this, then voters have a right to know.

Mr. Obama’s comments open a window into his anti-American, socialist worldview. Either he is a brazen liar who knows we are living beyond our means, or he is a delusional, self-absorbed academic leftist who is so obsessed with transformational change that he cannot see that we are sliding off a real fiscal cliff. Whatever the reason, his presidency poses a mortal threat to the republic’s long-term survival.

Maybe this simple chart from the Treasury Department will help Kuhner – it shows that the Bush administration’s policies turned a budget surplus into a massive budget deficit. The Obama administration’s policies, which were enacted to reverse the severe financial crisis that materialized under Bush, led to relatively modest increases in the deficit.

• Michael Keegan @ Huffington Post: Connecticut and the Cause of Our National Political Paralysis. 

• Stephen Webster @ Raw Story: Discovery Channel kicks Ted Nugent to the curb. 

• Steve Benen @ Maddow Blog: Learning the wrong lessons from the Newtown massacre.

• Hussein Rashid @ Religion Dispatches: Pam Geller’s Latest Subway Ad Inadvertently Attacks Hebrew Bible.

• Adam Serwer @ Mother Jones: Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin Now Going After Gay Troops. 

• Wayne Besen @ Truth Wins Out: “Ex-Gay” Rock Star John Paulk Exposed As Fraud…Again. 

• Carlos Maza @ Equality Matters: Washington Times Op-Ed Distorts California’s “Ex-Gay” Therapy Ban.

While Obama had a larger popular vote and Electoral College margin than George W. Bush, who claimed to have a mandate after he won re-election in 2004, now Republicans keep insisting that Obama doesn’t have a mandate because his election victory was too thin a margin. For example, while Dick Morris predicted that Mitt Romney would win a 325 electoral vote “landslide,” he then said Obama’s 332 electoral vote victory was merely a “squeaker.”

J.T. Young in the Washington Times today makes the case that Obama’s win wasn’t all that great because if you play around with the numbers and reduce the turnout numbers from Democratic-leaning groups like women then Romney would’ve won! Plus, the conservative share of the electorate was up in 2012 and Ronald Reagan posted huge margins when he ran for president so Americans must still be looking for Republican leadership, or something. 

Multiplying exit-polling participation percentage by preference percentage gives a good approximation of what the Kerry or Gore electoral impact would be on these groups so crucial to Mr. Obama’s victory. The average drop in support for Mr. Obama in 2012 from the higher of either Mr. Kerry or Mr. Gore among the five groups is 2.4 percent. Delete women from the calculation, and the average decline is 2.8 percent — almost enough to have allowed Mr. Romney to win by Mr. Obama’s 2012 popular vote margin.

Even the decline in votes for Mr. Obama by 18- to 29-year-olds compared to Mr. Kerry or Mr. Gore — 2.2 percent — is still more than enough to flip the popular vote to Mr. Romney. The declines in other demographics — blacks (2.4 percent), Hispanics, (2.8 percent) and liberals (3.7 percent) — are far greater.

Furthermore, vote totals for both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Gore came against George W. Bush, who hardly racked up Reagan-sized Republican margins.

…

Republicans also retain a real ideological advantage. Exit polling showed conservatives made up 35 percent of voters in 2012 and went 82 percent for Mr. Romney — hardly a conservative favorite. Liberals made up 25 percent of 2012 voters — their highest level among the past four elections and 3 percent more than in 2008 — going 86 percent for Mr. Obama. That means Republicans need only a little more than one-third of the remaining Independents to win, while Democrats need a bit less than two-thirds.

The American Family Association’s Buster Wilson even had a post-election rant arguing that even though Obama won the election 51-47 percent, Romney tied him in geography and therefore Democrats don’t have a mandate. “There’s an awful lot of red there,” Wilson claimed. He even wondered if Harry Reid is mentally unbalanced because he said that Democrats had a mandate to raise tax on top-earners.

Of course, since Democrats typically lose the rural vote, if we were simply to judge election mandates according to the colors on maps then Democrats will almost never have a mandate.

Steve Deace on his radio show yesterday was flummoxed that Obama won re-election while capturing just 22 percent of counties. Ignoring the fact that county size has little to do with population rates, he maintained that because Romney carried far more counties than Obama, America still has a conservative majority but freedom-hating liberal elites have “infiltrated the population centers” and ruined everything.

“If we fought this like the Revolutionary War was fought at times where the Red Coats stood on a line and the Colonials stood on a line and they just fired at each other, we would overwhelm them in sheer numbers,” Deace gloated, “we would steamroll them.”

What has happened here is we’ve been outflanked. Enemies of freedom and liberty, what they have done is infiltrated the population centers so that they run the editorial boards of almost every major newspaper in your city, they ran the government school board in almost every major city in America, they run even things to the point like the art center, who is on the board of your city’s art center? The statists are, the secularists are, the progressives are. They are running—they have outflanked us. If we fought this like the Revolutionary War was fought at times where the Red Coats stood on a line and the Colonials stood on a line and they just fired at each other, we would overwhelm them in sheer numbers. First of all, most of them don’t believe in guns, that’s one advantage. The other thing is we would overwhelm them in sheer numbers, we would steamroll them, I mean they could not defeat our sheer numbers. But what has happened is the enemies of freedom and liberty have outflanked us, they have been strategic in their thinking and that’s where they have concentrated their resources. So we are a mile wide but an inch deep, they are the exact opposite, they are about a foot wide and a mile deep.

Basically, Obama can only claim to have a popular mandate if he wins the least populated areas of America.