Sexting with the Stars

Washington, DC – For two months, the so-called mainstream media all but ignored the Sept. 11 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in four dead Americans. What actions the Obama administration took before, during and after the bloody assaults on the U.S. consulate and a CIA outpost should have been a legitimate election issue. But the Romney campaign only raised the disaster once — and then avoided it like an outbreak of the Ebola virus.

 

Now that the election is decided, the Fourth Estate is on the story. Though the president never mentioned the Benghazi debacle in his prepared remarks at this week’s press conference — his first since last March — fallout from the fiasco in Libya was finally topic number one for the potentates of the press. Of course the question wasn’t, “What did you know and when did you know it?” Instead, the lead off question, posed by Ben Feller of the Associated Press, was: “Can you assure the American people that there have been no breaches of national security or classified information in the scandal involving Generals Petraeus and Allen?” The follow up was about whether the “commander in chief and the American people should have been told that the CIA chief was under investigation before the election.”

So rather than focus on incompetence, misfeasance and/or malfeasance leading up to, in the midst of, and following a deadly terror attack – President Obama gets a pass by claiming that “There’s an ongoing investigation” and that he didn’t “want to comment on the specifics of the investigation.”

It was a brilliant, audacious diversion. The “reporters” present didn’t even question the veracity of Obama’s claim that “we’re not supposed to meddle in, you know, criminal investigations and that’s been our practice.” Perhaps they have simply forgotten how he used executive privilege to cover up the details of Operation Fast and Furious and the murder of another American — Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

The president did pontificate about “FBI protocols” and “certain procedures that both the FBI follow or DOJ follow (sic) when they’re involved in these investigations.” All this served to cleverly shift the focus from O-Team culpability for death and destruction in Benghazi to what really captures the attention of the media: a salacious sex scandal involving the CIA Director, our senior NATO commander in Afghanistan, at least two attractive women, an FBI agent who sends shirtless images of himself over the Internet and lots of torrid emails. If I wrote plot lines like this for video games and novels, my editors and producers would tell me to come up with more realistic scenarios.

Tawdry aspects of the Petraeus affair fascinate our media elites and distract from far more important work. Some of it even landed in my lap. On Tuesday, Activision-Treyarch released their new, astoundingly successful video game, “Call of Duty: Black Ops II.” Within hours of the launch, I was receiving calls, text messages, tweets and emails asking if I’m offended by my likeness appearing in the same video game with that of David Petraeus.

The short answer is, no. “Call of Duty: Black Ops II” is fictional, as are most of the characters — even the villains. I was able to work with the producers on developing the game scenario, participate in the story and make commercial endorsements. I last interviewed General Petraeus when he was ISAF commander and I was on assignment in Afghanistan for Fox News. We talked on and off camera about real special operations and did not discuss the video game. In retrospect, I don’t know him as well as I thought. But I am certain the prurient fascination with “sex and the stars” is a distraction from the vital need to get the truth about what really happened at our diplomatic mission in Libya — and taking steps to reduce the likelihood of it happening again.

That’s crucial because Obama’s Arab Spring is rapidly degenerating into an explosive Islamist winter. Radical websites and propaganda organs are trumpeting U.S. weakness and disarray. Calls for martyrs to attack American military and diplomatic posts overseas have increased five-fold since Benghazi. That may not be as sexy as military-mistress dalliances, but it’s a lot more important.

Not surprisingly, this line of thought does not appeal to all callers. Instead, some want to concentrate on similarities between between “Call of Duty: Black Ops II” and my new novel, “Heroes Proved.” There are some. Both the novel and the game are set in the future. Both deal with the threat of global terror and realistic unforeseen threats, unexpected challenges, unwanted dangers and unpredictable outcomes. But the main characters and story line in the game and the book are unique to each. General David Petraeus is in “Call of Duty: Black Ops II.” He’s not in “Heroes Proved.” I’m in both. Those who want to see how they differ will have to play the game and read the book.

Oliver North

Oliver North is a nationally syndicated columnist, the host of War Stories on the Fox News Channel, the author of the new novel Heroes Proved and the co-founder of Freedom Alliance, an organization that provides college scholarships to the children of U.S. military personnel killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty. Join Oliver North in Israel by going to www.olivernorthisrael.com.

http://townhall.com/columnists/olivernorth/2012/11/17/sexting_with_the_stars/page/full/

An Open Letter to my Black Evangelical Friends

I am not writing this letter to accuse but rather to advance understanding. And even though I am white, I am not writing as an outsider but as a fellow evangelical, part of the same spiritual family. May I pose some candid questions?

Are you guilty, on any level, of blind allegiance to the Democratic party? And, on Election Day, did any of you compromise your convictions out of racial solidarity?

I have been very open in my criticism of white evangelicals, pointing out how we often put our trust in the Republican party and how we look to the latest candidate as some kind of political savior, only to be disappointed time and time again, complaining that the Republicans wanted our votes but did not stand up for our values. “We won’t get fooled again,” we say, only to repeat the same cycle four years later.

On Election Day morning, I posted an article entitled “A Warning to Moral Conservatives,” raising concerns that if Mitt Romney was elected, we would be making a grave mistake in looking to him to advance our moral and social agenda. I even wrote an article in June entitled “Mitt Romney Is Not the Answer,” and I often told my evangelical radio listeners that I would not argue with them if they could not vote for Romney because he was a Mormon. So, I do understand black Christian reticence towards Romney (for these reasons, among others).

I simply do not understand how my black evangelical friends who so staunchly oppose same-sex marriage and who stand against abortion could cast their vote for the most radically pro-abortion, pro-gay-activist president in our history.

Was there no moral compromise involved in voting for him? Are there no issues that could disqualify him in your eyes? And must Barack Obama be elected and then reelected in order to make up for past injustices, as one black evangelical woman claimed?

In the last few months, black Christian leaders came on my radio show to express their disapproval of the president’s policies, urging their parishioners not to vote for him (without endorsing Romney). And in a recent article, my colleague Bishop Harry Jackson went as far as to say that, “President Obama has become a personality akin to the biblical figure ‘Ishmael’ for the African-American community instead of the ‘child of promise’ we had hoped for. In a nutshell, he has attempted to create a new, unbiblical standard of social justice that promotes abortion, same-sex marriage, a distrust of Israel, and a diminishing of religious liberties.”

Yet when it came to time to vote, the same percentage of black Americans who voted for Obama in 2008 did so again in 2012 (roughly 95%). How can this be? Again, I am not attacking, I am inquiring.

And I am not the only one inquiring. I have been receiving emails and calls from other African American evangelicals asking these same questions.

More disturbingly, some of these black Christians have told me that they have been cut off from family, friends, church members, and even pastors because they opposed the reelection of President Obama. To ask again, how can this be?

One black pastor explained to me that he is convinced that “many African American believers compromised God’s Word during the election in the name of Obama Care and social program such as foods stamps etc.” Is there any truth to this?

If so – and again, I am asking, not accusing – this is not only wrong, it misguided, since Democratic policies have hardly advanced the economic well-being of black America. As noted by Congressman Allen West, “Since 2007, black median household income has declined by 11 percent — the largest decline of all major racial and ethnic groups. . . . In 2011, the poverty rate among black Americans was 27.5 percent. The poverty rate among blacks living in families headed by women is 41 percent.”

To be sure, Republicans have done little to win the confidence of black Americans, and I understand the history of distrust in recent decades. But does this justify the overwhelming black allegiance to the Democratic party?

According to the BlackDignity.org website, “A black baby is three times more likely to be aborted [than] a white baby.” (The BlackGenocide.org website claims the figure is substantially higher; that website should be visited.)

BlackDignity.org also reports that, “Twice as many African-Americans have died from abortion than have died from AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.” And today, in New York City, 60% percent of black babies suffer the fate of abortion, never to see the light of day.

Does it trouble you, my black evangelical friends, that the Democratic platform, not to mention the Democratic National Convention, was almost a celebration of abortion?

In 2008, I warned my listeners that Mr. Obama, if elected, would support the goals of gay activism, including redefining marriage, but many listeners did not believe me. Now that President Obama has actually abused the teaching and example of Jesus to advocate same-sex marriage, how could you vote for him again?

One caller to my program on Monday told me candidly that he was shaking in the voting booth, knowing that he couldn’t support President Obama’s pro-abortion, pro-gay-activist policies. Yet, he confessed, he voted for him because he was black.

Was he alone in doing so? Again, I am not accusing. I am only asking.

Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a professor at a number of seminaries. He hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire, and his latest book is The Real Kosher Jesus.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/11/13/an_open_letter_to_my_black_evangelical_friends/page/full/

Nice Losers

Mitt Romney now joins the long list of the kinds of presidential candidates favored by the Republican establishment– nice, moderate losers, people with no coherently articulated vision, despite how many ad hoc talking points they may have.

The list of Republican presidential candidates like this goes back at least as far as 1948, when Thomas E. Dewey ran against President Harry Truman. Dewey spoke in lofty generalities while Truman spoke in hard-hitting specifics. Since then, there have been many re-runs of this same scenario, featuring losing Republican presidential candidates John McCain, Bob Dole, Gerald Ford and, when he ran for reelection, George H.W. Bush.

Bush 41 first succeeded when he ran for election as if he were another Ronald Reagan (“Read my lips, no new taxes“), but then lost when he ran for reelection as himself– “kinder and gentler,” disdainful of “the vision thing” and looking at his watch during a debate, when he should have been counter-attacking against the foolish things being said.

This year, Barack Obama had the hard-hitting specifics– such as ending “tax cuts for the rich” who should pay “their fair share,” government “investing” in “the industries of the future” and the like. He had a coherent vision, however warped.

Most of Obama’s arguments were rotten, if you bothered to put them under scrutiny. But someone once said that it is amazing how long the rotten can hold together, if you don’t handle it roughly.

Any number of conservative commentators, both in the print media and on talk radio, examined and exposed the fraudulence of Obama’s “tax cuts for the rich” argument. But did you ever hear Mitt Romney bother to explain the specifics which exposed the flaws in Obama’s argument?

On election night, the rotten held together because Mitt Romney had not handled it roughly with specifics. Romney was too nice to handle Obama’s absurdities roughly. He definitely out-niced Obama– as John McCain had out-niced Obama in 2008, and as Dewey out-niced Truman back in 1948. And these Republicans all lost.

In this year’s first presidential debate, Obama out-niced Romney. But, when he lost out doing that, he then reversed himself, became the attacker, and ultimately the winner on election night, despite a track record that should have buried him in a landslide.

When you look at this as a horse race, there is no question that the Republicans deserved to lose. But the stakes for this great nation, at this crucial juncture in its history and in the history of the world, are far too momentous to look at this election as just a contest between two candidates or two political parties.

Quite aside from the immediate effects of particular policies, Barack Obama has repeatedly circumvented the laws, including the Constitution of the United States, in ways and on a scale that pushes this nation in the direction of arbitrary one-man rule.

Now that Obama will be in a position to appoint Supreme Court justices who can rubber stamp his evasions of the law and usurpations of power, this country may be unrecognizable in a few years as the America that once led the world in freedom, as well as in many other things.

Barack Obama’s boast, on the eve of the election of 2008– “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America“– can now be carried out, without fear of ever having to face the voters again.

This “transforming” project extends far beyond fundamental internal institutions, or even the polarization and corruption of the people themselves, with goodies handed out in exchange for their surrendering their birthright of freedom.

Obama will now also have more “flexibility,” as he told Russian President Medvedev, to transform the international order, where he has long shown that he thinks America has too much power and influence. A nuclear Iran can change that. Forever.

Have you noticed how many of our enemies in other countries have been rooting for Obama? You or your children may yet have reason to recall that as a bitter memory of a warning sign ignored on election day in 2012.

Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of  The Housing Boom and Bust.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/11/13/creators_oped/page/full/

Obama Likely Won Re-Election Through Election Fraud

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rachel Alexander

Rachel Alexander is the editor of the Intellectual Conservative.

http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2012/11/11/obama_likely_won_reelection_through_election_fraud/page/full/

United We Stand!!! Will President Obama Truly Bring the Nation Together? Part 1

This election cycle has been one of the most interesting in modern history. Most observers agree that the nation was split down the middle on their opinions of the character and vision of the candidates. Without assigning blame, I would like to ask the question: How is it that a campaign of Hope and Change has resulted in such division?

The answer is as simple as the question is puzzling. Our primary division stems from two things: justice concerns among minorities (Blacks, Hispanic, and Asian) and a very liberal agenda concerning personal liberty, energy strategy, and foreign policy. These are questions, according to President Obama, about the foundational values we want the nation to be built upon. It seems to me that whites in the nation are still leaning slightly more toward conservative values. Unfortunately the GOP minorities (blacks, Hispanics, and Asians) who represent almost 1 out of 4 voters, feel that there is no place for them in the Republican ranks.

For years, I have presented the fact that many African Americans and Hispanics have voted on justice issues such as poverty while evangelical Christians focused on righteousness issues. Rush Limbaugh is wrong when he said that the divide in the nation has to do with those who believe in “Santa Claus” and those who don’t. Rush’s rhetoric sounds good but is not based in reality. The Obama campaign forced the nation to look at several “moral issues” that were based on a different kind of grid. If the GOP had spoken a concrete vision concerning revitalization of urban America, systematic immigration reform, and a unifying vision of the support of traditional marriage; they would have won with a landslide.

In a very real sense the presidential race was about choosing what kind of foundation the nation will rest upon for the immediate future. The administration masterfully played on the fears of minorities and the desires of half a dozen liberal agendas – the radical green movement, gay marriage advocates, etc.

The 2012 presidential election is very important because of the profound directional decisions the president has before him. This president will likely choose at least two Supreme Court justices, determine the size of government, set the direction of foreign policy in a post Islamic spring era, and decide the shape of our national healthcare system for a decade beyond his term.

History will look back on this time and say that Barack Obama was either the most transformational president or the worst president in history. His power has not come from a coherent plan or vision which he rightly demanded from Governor Romney. His strength has come from the fact that many segments of the electorate who have felt disenfranchised believe that he understands them better than anyone on the conservative side of the ledger.

Being the better of two evils was a powerful political advantage for the president. Since May 2012, I have spoken with hundreds of faith leaders who described themselves as being caught between “the devil and the deep blue sea.” For them, Mitt Romney represented white privilege and in this period of American disillusionment with politics-as-usual, President Obama’s first election unified many folks. He was elected because we as a people wanted to turn our economy around and to end to five things:

1. Partisanship and game playing in government

2. Racism and social division

3. Reckless national spending under George Bush

4. Irresponsible corporate greed and corruption

5. An era of perceived US war mongering

It is obvious that President Obama has not fixed the economy; even the most optimistic of the president’s supporters are not expecting his policies to produce immediate results. President Clinton’s brilliant national convention speech gave President Obama a “Get Out of Jail Free” card, when he stated that no one could have turned the economy around in such a short time.

At that point of the campaign, candidate Romney could have still won the race by shifting to clearer discussions about capitalism, government, renewing blighted urban areas, and social issues. Focusing on objective economic and tax measures should have been of interest to most Americans. Unfortunately for Romney, economics alone were not on the minds of the electorate.

….To be continued…

Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

Bishop Harry Jackson is chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition and senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, MD, and co-authored, Personal Faith, Public Policy [FrontLine; March 2008] with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

http://townhall.com/columnists/harryrjacksonjr/2012/11/10/united_we_stand_will_president_obama_truly_bring_the_nation_together_part_1/page/full/

Hollywood Won 2012?

The television industry loves to claim that all of the sex, violence and foul-mouthed language it displays has zero harmful effects on children. On the other hand, they would never dream of telling their advertisers that their paid messages on TV have no effect. So does the entertainment industry have an impact or doesn’t it?

 

The answer is that Tinseltown certainly has an effect, and when that effect is felt in the political arena, the hell with pretending they don’t. They openly celebrate.

After the 2012 election, the surprising (if narrow) victories for liberals drew a thumbs-up commentary from former Washington Post reporter Sharon Waxman at The Wrap website. She credited Hollywood.

“Hollywood should be euphoric today. The entertainment industry woke up to election results that reflect a country a lot more like the fictional place they’ve been depicting on screens large and small for decades: more ethnically diverse, more gay-friendly, with powerful women and where it’s just fine to light up a spliff.”

The black president won re-election, alongside the first openly lesbian U.S. senator. Voters approved gay marriage referendums in four states and marijuana legalization measures in two states. Waxman added exit poll numbers for minorities: Latinos voted for Obama by 75 to 23 and Asians by 73 to 26. “The affirmation of liberal values in this election is remarkable,” she claimed.

Waxman conceded that almost half the country voted for Mitt Romney. She guessed: “The rejection of the Republican Party agenda was more of a factor than an embrace of left-wing values.”

Where to start? The left certainly can — and should — take the credit for the civil rights crusade. But that was half of a century ago. Why not give Abe Lincoln — yup, Republicans, the credit?

Forty-four states don’t have gay marriage legislation. Since 1998, in 28 states where it’s been proposed, every single ballot initiative to uphold traditional marriage has passed, including blue states like Hawaii and California, although the size of the majorities faded over time.

How did Tolerant Tinseltown handle it? The passage of California’s Proposition 8 in 2008, fervently expected to fail in the Year of Obama, led to a vicious round of anti-Mormon sentiment and blacklisting for opposing “history,” and at least two Mormons were forced into resignations from entertainment jobs for making $1,000 donations to the Prop 8 campaign.

Forward to 2012, and the Mormon Church didn’t want to get involved in state referendums in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington because it might interfere with electing the first Mormon president. The Catholic Church and evangelical pro-family activists in these states failed to mobilize enough opposition.

Still, the media declared the victory emanated from television sets across America in HD — for Highly Democratic — and there’s truth here.

The Hollywood Reporter conducted a poll with the research firm Penn Schoen Berland on October 29 and announced that shows with gay characters, like ABC’s “Modern Family,” Fox’s “Glee” and NBC’s “The New Normal” are helping drive voters to “historically unprecedented support of gay marriage.” (Did you hear that, conservatives who regularly ignore Hollywood because, really, who cares?)

Asked about how the shows influenced them, 27 percent said gay-promotional TV shows made them more pro-gay marriage, and 6 percent more opposed. Obama voters watched and 30 percent grew more supportive, to 2 percent less supportive. Surprisingly, the shows were also winning over Romney voters: 13 percent became more pro-gay marriage, while 12 percent were more opposed. (Did you hear that, pro-family conservatives?)

Pollster Mark Penn insisted young people are the most influenced. “Almost twice as many voters under 35 say these shows made them more in favor of gay marriage compared with voters over 35 — 38 percent versus just 20 percent. Impressionable young people are more open to changing their views and behavior, based on what they’re watching.”

But the networks want to deny impressionable young people are swayed by the sensationalism in their programs. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

Liberals are twice as likely to watch these shows, but over the past decade, the Hollywood Reporter poll found about three times as many voters have become more for gay marriage as against — 31 percent pro, 10 percent anti.

Gay activists and their media allies now routinely cite “Glee” and “Modern Family” as proof of the historical inevitability of social liberalism. After the election, former Republican pollster Matthew Dowd cracked the Republicans were a “‘Mad Men’ party in a ‘Modern Family’ world.” In other words, they’re 50 years behind the times.

These same liberals continue to lament that democracy is being destroyed by corporate money sloshing all over the television during the ad breaks, presumably because of their impact in a medium where they claim the entertainment sponsored doesn’t have an impact on impressionable folks — except when the impact furthers the destruction of social mores they like to champion publicly. Did you follow that?

Brent Bozell

Founder and President of the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell runs the largest media watchdog organization in America.

http://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2012/11/09/hollywood_won_2012/page/full/

Aftermath: Lessons from the 2012 Election

The 2012 U.S. election is over, and more than 100 million Americans  participated in the great exercise of democracy — fulfilling the  franchise of the vote. Even with some votes not yet counted and some  issues as yet clarified, a general picture of the election is clearly in  view, and the impact of this election will be both massive and  enduring.

Several lessons emerge in the immediate aftermath of the election and Christians should consider them carefully.

A Decisive Victory

First,  we must recognize that President Barack Obama won a decisive and clear  victory, surging to over 300 votes in the Electoral College before  midnight. Against the expectations of many, the President held his 2008  coalition together. Voting intensity among younger Americans,  African-Americans, Hispanics, and other crucial constituencies held  firm. Once the election results started coming in, an Obama victory came  quickly into view.

Barack Obama avoided the ignominy of an  electoral repudiation and may also have won the popular vote. The  decisive nature of his win spared the nation the agonies of the 2000  election and points to a major political realignment. Other issues also  became clear. The election returns and voting data indicate that  President Obama’s “evolution” on the issue of same-sex marriage cost him  nothing. That probably surprised both sides in that controversy.

Christians  must now pray for our President. As the Apostle Paul instructs us,  “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions,  and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in  high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and  dignified in every way.” (1 Timothy 2:1-2 ESV) We should eagerly and  urgently pray for our President. We should pray for his health and his  family, for his stamina and his character. We should even pray that he  and his administration will be remembered as one of the greatest of our  nation’s history, measured even by the convictions that are most  important to us.

We are rightly and deeply concerned. We must pray  that God will change President Obama’s heart on a host of issues,  ranging from the sanctity of unborn life to the integrity of marriage.  We must push back against his contraception mandate that tramples upon  religious liberty. Given the trajectory of his first term in office, we  are urgently concerned about a second term, knowing that the President  will never again face the electorate.

As the President  acknowledged in his speech last night, our nation faces huge challenges.  We must pray that President Obama will lead in a spirit of national  unity and mutual respect, bringing Americans together to resolve these  ominous problems. Incredible responsibility now rests on his shoulders.  He has won a second term, now he must rightly lead.

A Divided Electorate

As  morning dawned, the election of 2012 looms as one of the closest in  American history. At 2:00 a.m., only 240,000 votes out of more than 103  million cast separated President Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney. That is a  margin of .3% and would rank the election as the third closest, falling  behind the slim margins of the 1960 election between John F. Kennedy and  Richard M. Nixon and the 1880 election between James Garfield and  Winfield S. Hancock.

The margin in the Electoral College is  significant, but the popular vote reveals a deeply divided nation. The  nation is divided politically, but that divide points to a division at  the level of worldview. The 2012 election makes clear that Americans are  divided over fundamental questions. Americans are divided into camps  that define and see the world in fundamentally different terms. The  election did not cause this division, it merely revealed it. This deep  division at the level of worldview presents President Obama with a  daunting political challenge, but a worldview crisis is an even greater  challenge for the church.

A Changed and Changing Electorate

Fundamental  changes to the American electorate also became evident. Vast  demographic changes mean that the electorate is far more ethnically,  culturally, and ideologically diverse. The electorate is becoming more  secular. Recent studies have indicated that the single greatest  predictor of voting patterns is the frequency of church attendance. Far  fewer Americans now attend church, and a recent study indicated that  fully 20% of all Americans identify with no religious preference at all.  The secularizing of the electorate will have monumental consequences.

America  is becoming more urbanized, and this also changes voting patterns.  Younger voters are disproportionately identified in ethnic terms,  pointing to long-term electoral shifts. Fewer Americans are married and  fewer have children in the home. This, too, changes voting habits. These  are just a few of the factors pointing to a fundamental change in the  nation.

The Demise of the Republican Coalition

Though  many Republicans will draw encouragement from the popular vote, the  Electoral College now confronts the Republican Party as a massive  problem. The map just does not add up for Republicans in terms of the  present reality, much less the shape of the future. Put simply, the  Republican Party cannot win unless it becomes the party of aspiration  for younger Americans and Hispanic Americans. Otherwise, it will soon  become a retirement community for aging conservatives. The party’s  position on immigration is disastrous, and it is at odds with the  party’s own values.

No party can win if it is seen as  heartless. No party can win if it appeals only to white and older  Americans. No party can win if it looks more like the way to the past  than the way to the future. The Republican Party could not defeat a  sitting President with a weak economy and catastrophic unemployment. As  columnist George Will has said, a party that cannot win under these  circumstances might need to look for another line of work.

The  Republican Party will surely enter into a period of intense  self-examination and a struggle for the future shape and direction of  the party. That fight will be necessary, and it will be important to  those of us who are concerned about a range of issues.

A Catastrophe on Moral Issues

Evangelical  Christians must see the 2012 election as a catastrophe for crucial  moral concerns. The election of President Obama returns a radically  pro-abortion President to the White House, soon after he had endorsed  same-sex marriage. President Obama is likely to have the opportunity to  appoint one or more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, and they are  almost sure to agree with his constitutional philosophy.

Furthermore,  at least two states, Maine and Maryland, legalized same-sex marriage  last night. Washington State is likely to join them once the votes there  are counted. An effort to pass a constitutional amendment preventing  same-sex marriage went down to defeat in Minnesota. These came after 33  states had passed some measure defining marriage as the union of a man  and a woman. After 33 victories, last night brought multiple defeats.

Other states considered issues ranging  from abortion and marijuana to assisted suicide. While not all were  lost, the moral shift was evident in the voting patterns.

Clearly,  we face a new moral landscape in America, and huge challenge to those  of us who care passionately about these issues. We face a worldview  challenge that is far greater than any political challenge, as we must  learn how to winsomely convince Americans to share our moral convictions  about marriage, sex, the sanctity of life, and a range of moral issues.  This will not be easy. It is, however, an urgent call to action.

More than the Presidency Was at Stake

Scores  of other offices were at stake in the 2012 election, and at every  level. The lack of complete election results leaves many unanswered  questions this morning, but one big fact is known — the U.S. Senate  will remain in Democratic hands. As a matter of fact, this election may  well point to a liberal shift in that body. The election of Elizabeth  Warren (MA) and Tammy Baldwin (WI) and the re-election of Sherrod Brown  (OH) point in this direction. Tammy Baldwin becomes the first openly-gay  candidate elected to the U.S. Senate.

It’s Not Really About Politics

Christians  must never see political action as an end, but only as a means. We can  never seek salvation through the voting booth, and we must never look  for a political messiah. Nevertheless, Christians do bear a political  responsibility, established in love of God and love of neighbor. We are  rightly concerned about this world, but only to a limited extent. Our  main concern is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Being in the world but  not of the world has never been easy. The 2012 election underlines the  challenges we now face and the responsibilities we dare not neglect.

http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/11/07/aftermath-lessons-from-the-2012-election/

We Reap What We Sow

So, guess what? I’m disappointed, along with the other 57 million people who voted for Mitt Romney. Even still, disappointment and failure is never an excuse for any of us to give up. From that first big slug in my gut after my husband was killed in 2001 until this day, the one thing that has kept me grounded is my faith in God and the knowledge that things will get better over time.

Mindboggling is the word that comes to mind when I swallow the fact that a majority — almost 60 million people — voted to affirm the antithesis of America’s Judeo-Christian values and sound economic reform. It is as if people checked their brains at the door prior to pulling the polling booth’s curtain.

The chickens will most certainly be coming home to roost in America, so it sure would be nice if there were a way to protect those of us who voted with all our faculties intact from the looming collateral damage. But it doesn’t work that way. Until the bottom drops out and we become Greece West, we are still America, and Americans do not give up just because times are tough.

Failure is not a bad word — just as long as it is followed by a comma or semicolon and not a period. History is filled with examples of failure transformed into achievement. The 2012 election should serve as an opportunity for introspection as well as inspiration because conservatives can do better.

One takeaway from Romney’s defeat is we conservatives must invest our time and energy on America’s youth. Analysts say more youth voted in 2012 than in 2008 and Obama was the recipient of more than 60 percent of the youth vote.

While many of us have been preoccupied making big bucks and moving up the corporate ladder, liberalism has wormed its way into our school systems and universities; hence infiltrating our children’s minds. We’ve been too busy for family dinners during the week and no time for worship on the weekend. We’ve sent our kids onto the battlefield unarmed and defenseless. No wonder so many of them voted for Barack Obama.

How easy it is to cast blame on everyone but ourselves when bad things happen. Sure, 60 million people decided to give Obama a second chance, but until conservatives take responsibility for their own missteps, they will never become the better version of themselves America’s children deserve.

I can’t help but wonder had we done our job; maybe the youth would have noted an inconsistency in a president who blatantly betrayed the Christian faith he claims to be part of, when he mandated a plaque with Jesus’ name on it be covered during his Georgetown University speech in 2009. And they should have at least questioned why a smart Harvard graduate would strategically omit the word “Creator” from the Declaration of Independence in recent years. And if we’d taught them sound economic values like balancing a budget or how to balance a checkbook, maybe they wouldn’t have been so mesmerized by one who uses taxpayer funds like Monopoly money and offers handouts as if they grow on trees on the White House lawn.

Elections have consequences, and we will reap what we sow, so we may as well busy ourselves in the meantime investing in something that will undoubtedly pay off in the future — our children. The Republican Establishment will say it’s time to go back to the drawing board, but I think we need to go back to the dining room table.

Susan Brown

Susan Stamper Brown’s weekly column is nationally syndicated. She can be reached at writestamper@gmail.com or via her website at susan@susanstamperbrown.com. Her Facebook page can be found here.

http://townhall.com/columnists/susanbrown/2012/11/08/we_reap_what_we_sow/page/full/

Four More Years of Decline

Great nations and proud empires have always collapsed from within before they were conquered from without.

President Obama’s re-election mirrors the self-indulgent, greedy and envious nation we are rapidly becoming.

Pollsters Michael Barone and Dick Morris got it horribly wrong. Both predicted a 300 electoral-vote win for Romney. It was President Obama who reached that mark.

The central message coming out of the election seems to be that we are no longer the America of our Founders, or even the America that existed during World War II, which produced our “greatest generation.

Instead, the election validates the enormous cultural shift that has been taking place since the ’60s when a countercultural bomb was dropped on society, producing moral fallout that continues to this day.

I am a child of the “greatest generation.” My parents believed I should learn to take care of myself. They would have been too embarrassed to ask for help, if they needed it. If they did, they would turn to family first, or to a friend or neighbor. There were fewer social programs then, so people mostly did without, living only on what they truly needed. It said something about your character if you refused to strive toward self-sufficiency.

In 2012, nothing appears to embarrass us. Snooki. Honey Boo Boo. Reality TV wives. Look at what is paraded before us as normal. Oppose the new normal and it’s you who are the anomaly.

Young people are taught in public schools, at major universities, on television and in movies, that every life choice is acceptable and every tenet open to interpretation. In politics, some proclaim it is right to oppose the successful and envy the rich to the point where they must be denigrated and penalized for their success with higher taxes. No one has to be personally responsible. No education; no motivation; no life plan? No problem. The government will take care of you.

One thing Romney might have done better is to have featured more people who had overcome government dependence by embracing the values he was promoting. Example trumps philosophy and success should trump victimhood. Inspiration follows perspiration. But in our “entitlement” age even that might have been impossible to overcome.

Other signs of cultural decay are accepted with little notice. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 40 percent of babies born in America are born to unmarried women. Shrug. Abortion clinics continue to operate. Yawn.

There is no longer any cultural corrective because we have abandoned the concept of objective truth. Nothing is right or wrong, because that suggests a standard by which right and wrong might be defined. Personal choice is the new “standard,” which is no standard at all. One might as well develop individual weights and measures.

Politicians bid for votes, making promises they can’t keep to voters who will believe anything, as long as it appeals to greed, envy and their sense of entitlement. This undermines our culture. This fuels our massive debt, weakening our economic power and America’s standing in the world.

Standards used to be defined and mostly accepted, if not always universally practiced. Many grew out of religious principles. According to a recent Pew Poll, a growing number of people, especially young people, no longer believe in God or religion. In this, and in our increasing flirtation with socialism, America is becoming more like Europe. Government seems to be replacing God as the only acceptable “deity.”

So what is the answer? Should conservatives throw in the towel and say America, as passed down to us by previous generations, is no more? That was President Obama’s announced goal four years ago when he promised to “fundamentally transform America.” He’s doing it and sufficient numbers of us appear happy to let him. When they realize what they have done, however, it may well be too late to reverse course.

Cal  Thomas

Cal Thomas is co-author (with Bob Beckel) of the book, “Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America“.

http://townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/2012/11/08/four_more_years_of_decline/page/full/

The Initial Aftershocks

Nobody likes to lose. But defeats can prove advantageous if used as a learning tool. Newt Gingrich lost his first two congressional campaigns, but won his third. Twenty years after his first defeat, he changed the nation with the Contract With America.

Those who may be disheartened and dismayed over Tuesday’s election results might want to consider this: Our nation is strong and resilient, and the results must be used as an opportunity to learn rather than an opportunity to lay blame.

President Obama won. A sitting president always has an advantage, but with a listing economy, high unemployment and Obama’s debilitating debate performance, Republican nominee Mitt Romany looked as if he had a real chance — and he did.

Two short campaign takeaways:

Liberals’ feelings beat conservative facts.

Obama’s emotional appeal that he cares about people trumps conservative facts. Obama says he cares, and people believe.

Republicans can talk about the 23 million people who are underemployed or unemployed, about the 60 percent rise in debt since Obama took office, about the regulations that are strangling business, but if voters do not believe they are cared about, they can’t listen.

Takeaway: If people don’t believe you care about them, they can’t listen to you and process facts. To test, try this with people you love: Tell them you don’t care about them, and then try to have a facts-based conversation. They will focus not on the facts but on why you don’t love them.

Republicans are terrible communicators. They busily compile facts but forget to reach out to women and minorities. Then they wonder why those groups won’t listen to or accept their facts.

Republicans should include women and minorities in their policy discussions and then ask them how best to communicate to their communities that they do care. Only after that would it help to point out how Republican policies would benefit those groups.

Takeaway: Inclusion is the solution.

Where are we after the elections?

Obama managed to grind out a re-election victory.

The House of Representatives has remained in solid Republican control and will be led by Speaker John Boehner.

The Democrats have retained the Senate and will be led by Majority Leader Harry Reid.        Our national government remains split between Republicans and Democrats. This means that, to make progress, the two parties must work with one another.

We have shown as recently as last week that we can do it: The American people responded to Hurricane Sandy by working together and helping people. Our country is more important than either party.

The American people want their political leaders to work together for the good of our nation.

Boehner has control of the House schedule for bills. He has the opportunity to set the tone and agenda. Boehner should schedule a series of small, incremental, nondivisive bills that Republicans and Democrats would both want to vote for. They could be about anything: The color of the carpet on the floor of the House, a special thanks our troops. The purpose of the bills would be to create an environment where Republicans and Democrats would work together to pass bills that help America.

The passage of these bills should include photo ops for both sides that tout Americans working together for our future.

Boehner would then be able to go to Obama as a speaker who is willing to work with Democrats. This would force Obama to begin to work with Republicans.

The public would become used to a Congress working together, and would wonder why the Senate and president were not able to place our country first.

With a narrow victory this election, Obama does not have a mandate, but hehas an opportunity to carry out the high ideals of his victory speech.

“You elected us to focus on your jobs, not ours,” Obama said Tuesday night. “And in the coming weeks and months, I am looking forward to reaching out and working with leaders of both parties to meet the challenges we can only solve together. Reducing our deficit. Reforming our tax code. Fixing our immigration system. Freeing ourselves from foreign oil. We’ve got more work to do.”

Work to do indeed. With a slim win this election, Obama has the opportunity to go beyond flowery rhetoric. He can return to Washington, reach out to Boehner and begin the real work of putting country first.

Jackie Gingrich Cushman

Jackie Gingrich Cushman is a speaker, syndicated columnist, socialpreneur, and author of “The Essential American: 25 Documents and Speeches Every American Should Own,” and co-author of “The 5 Principles for a Successful Life: From Our Family to Yours”.

http://townhall.com/columnists/jackiegingrichcushman/2012/11/08/the_initial_aftershocks/page/full/