What is this thing called LOVE?

Recently the question of whether or not President Obama loves this country has surfaced in the media. Rudy Giuliani, in particular, has been roundly criticized by the Left for suggesting that he does not – or at least does not show it enough. How can one discern whether one loves someone or something? Who can get inside a heart to know the truth? Nobody! But wait; there is another way for outsiders to make a reasonable guess.

Let us pretend that love is on the witness stand, from which vantage point we might learn something about the state of Mr. Obama’s affections. In any love affair we have a suitor; this will be the president, and his potential bride, America and Americans. Let us start at the beginning of the courtship. Mr. Obama did not, by all accounts, fall in love with America. It was a lengthy courtship and an arranged marriage instigated by prominent Chicago ‘marriage brokers’ who saw great advantage by pairing up Mr. Obama with America. But even arranged marriages can turn out well if both parties get

The first hallmark of a lover – falling madly in love – is missing in Mr. Obama’s case. But once he decided to take his ‘bride,’ we can perhaps discern from his outward actions whether he fell in love after the ceremony or is gallantly carrying on the pose for the family’s sake. What are the characteristic signs of a lover? Pride and admiration for starters. Yet, Mr. Obama announced even before took his vows that he wanted to “transform” his love. Why? Was she that repulsive? Fortunately, his potential bride did not take umbrage at the insult, and in fact seemed quite agreeable to the idea of being transformed, even if she had no clear indication from what, and into what.

It is a given that a proud husband would express his admiration for his beloved. Instead, Mr. Obama on his first trip overseas did nothing but apologize for his new bride’s shortcomings and past transgressions. But his words also gave the impression that he had a bride who brought such awesome responsibilities that only he could reform her. Strangely, she did not flinch from being exposed so cruelly, and later when the prospect of a ‘divorce’ arose, she turned it down resolutely. Her spouse obviously knew best, and she looked to him for guidance. Many saw problems in the marriage, but their voices were muted by the great outpouring of affection that arose from every quarter. But if America the bride hoped for respect from her spouse, it has yet to arrive even after 7 years of ‘marriage.’

Mr. Obama was not the average suitor or lover; he assumed proportions of a demi-god, and while he could belittle his bride, he signaled that she and her troublesome brood had better not talk back – or face “serious consequences”! What else would a loving husband do? He would protect his love. Yet Mr. Obama has done everything to undermine her security, leaving her anxious, insecure, and vulnerable. Lovers also bestow gifts upon their beloved. Well, Mr. Obama has bestowed trillions of dollars of gifts, but the only problem is that his bride has to pay for them.

Someone in love also trusts his beloved, and will accord her liberty and respect her independence. Mr. Obama’s has shown that he believes that only he can determine what’s best for his bride, doling out freedoms like a miser. And he is not embarrassed to sweet talk her publicly while abusing her behind her back, even undermining her framework to which she owes her awesome beauty.

To sum up then, a lover expresses his admiration, respect, and passion at every opportunity. Does Mr. Obama proclaim himself lucky to be accepted by and possess such a delightful creature? Is it possible that Mr. Obama loves America for the ‘dowry’ she brought with her and the joy he gets in spending it? You figure it out.

The man, the president and…astrology! Another view.

Barack Obama ascended to the presidency on a platform of “hope and change” and a desire to transform America. Voters bought into it – twice.  Who is this beguiling man whose past has been – and remains – shrouded in mystery? From the time he won the nomination until the election, hardly any time was spent vetting candidate Obama. The manic desire to see this man become America’s first black president overwhelmed the mainstream media’s professional integrity, and they settled for becoming his enablers and appendages to the Democrat Party. The fact that Obama might have been constitutionally unqualified to become president was of no concern even to large segments of the Republican Party, and those who dared to criticize his radical background or question his place of birth were quickly labeled “racist” or “birthers.” But if mystery still surrounds the president’s background, there is less mystery from an astrological viewpoint.

Skeptics will argue that astrology is not a legitimate basis from which to judge an individual. But a skeptic‘s job is to doubt and dismiss. It is not my intent to try and validate astrology, but rather to use this valuable tool to present a unique overview of the president and his presidency as well as the upcoming presidential election.  In essence, we are dealing with a Celestial Clock whose ‘hands’ comprise the luminaries – the Sun and the Moon – and the 8 planets. Every human at the time and place of birth is coordinated with this clock, and the event can then be viewed in the form of a horoscope or natal chart which is actually a snapshot of the heavens at that particular moment in time. Let us look at Obama’s chart as it relates to his presidency.

First, his ascending sign, the lens from which he views life, is in Aquarius; independent, erratic, eccentric, or far-sighted. It is unemotional and can be described sort of this way: a lover of humanity but extremely selective about people!

Pundits, critics, and even supporters alike keep waiting for Mr. Obama to become a leader. That may be expecting too much of him – although were he to be handed better scripts he might at least be able to act the part.   His natal Sun is in Leo, and correlates with a lover of the dramatic, a showman, and someone who enjoys the trappings of royalty. Its symbol, the lion, suggests majesty – and a mighty roar but with little substance behind it. His Mercury –   the way he communicates or expresses himself – is also in the regal sign of Leo, reinforcing his talents for emoting, for indulging in make-believe, and his fun-loving, pleasure -oriented nature. He is someone who would rather be a monarch than a president, preferring to rule than lead. And that might explain his preference to act by executive order rather than consult Congress. His Moon, which stands for personality – as opposed to the Sun and individuality – is in Taurus, and can denote a bull-headed stubbornness. It can also mean someone dominated in childhood by a rigid, opinionated mother, or someone who clings to lost causes out of loyalty. Venus, the way an individual seeks love, in his chart is in Cancer, and is often attracted to thin-skinned, or easily offended or otherwise clinging love objects.  At best it’s ‘sensitive,’ or nurturing.    Also, with his Venus in Cancer he thrives on the love/adoration he receives from crowds on the campaign and fund-raising trails.  His Mars in Virgo, on the other hand, is analytical, and critical rather than emotional. It can make the individual seem detached, and even cold or indifferent. It is in stark contrast to his warmer, theatrical Leo side.

There are three other planets that round out this mini- presidential portrait. First, his Jupiter in Aquarius– the spiritual or philosophical side of his nature – indicates a non-traditional or open approach to religion. While Islam was the professed faith of his youth, he later adopted a radical form of Christianity under the guidance of his mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.   Second, his Neptune is in Scorpio, and Neptune is the planet that correlates with the theatre, and make-believe, and it figures prominently in his natal chart. But a transit of Neptune in Scorpio (and each sign spends 14 years in Neptune) brought about the Sexual Revolution mentality of the sixties and seventies, and, among other activities, it correlates with drugs and violence. Depending upon the individual’s particular moral fiber, he/she becomes mired – or inspired. In his book, Obama reveals that he was a voracious partaker of the drug culture, opting out of the real world for one of escapism and fantasy. Neptune, artistic and altruistic at one level, has the capacity to deceive by pretense or self-delusion. This is the sign of the dreamer of what might be and not what is.

Finally, Mr. Obama’s Saturn in the sign of Capricorn points to a father figure who was either a strict disciplinarian or a man aloof or dismissive, with a need to dominate. In Obama’s chart, Saturn forms what is called “a Grand Trine” with two other planets, and it is considered to be a very lucky signature and correlates with great ease. In other words it tends to laziness since the individual never really has to work hard for anything. Everything seems to fall into the lucky individual’s lap.

Now having delineated some of the features that correlate with Obama’s natal chart, we need to look at how his chart fits into two other natal charts: those of his first and second terms. Now we are talking about what is called ‘horary astrology’ – charts for events rather than individuals – and the moment that a president is sworn into office, the event is born of that moment, and, as Carl Jung explained it, “whatever is born or done at this moment of time, has the quality of this moment of time.”  But here’s what is so fascinating: Mr. Obama may be the first president in our history to be sworn in four times: twice in 2009, and twice in 2013.

Traditionally, every president takes the oath of office on January 20 at noon, except when that date falls on a Sunday, in which case the ceremony is held on Monday. In January of 2009 Obama was sworn in at noon, but due to a semantic glitch by Justice Roberts in the administration of the oath of office, officials feared that the president’s authority could be challenged on a technicality. Rather than face what these individuals perceived to be a possible threat to his presidency, Mr. Obama was sworn in privately the following day at 7:35 P.M. – which then overrode the first oath. Now the picture was dramatically different, and for the new president that semantic glitch turned out to be fortunate because the new chart formed was so favorable it enabled him to pass Obamacare – his signature legislation. This new chart also gave Mr. Obama so much ease and leeway to act that he literally ruled over all he surveyed. Interestingly, the prominent signature planet in this chart was Saturn in the sign of Virgo, and if you can visualize the pattern of this chart as a basket, Saturn was its handle. Saturn governs restrictions and limitations and rules and regulations, and there has been nothing his administration does not want to regulate. But this does not appear to be entirely Mr. Obama calling all the shots; it suggests that the new president was beholden to, and comfortable with taking orders from unnamed power brokers. As a whole, there was no real opposition from Congress, but under the radar, the ‘proletariat’ (the Moon in Sagittarius) began to get restless, and signs of disenchantment started to appear behind the scenes. In general, however, the president inherited a lucky chart for his first term, but had he assumed office the day before how different history might have been. It would have meant all the emphasis was on serious foreign affairs, but Mr. Obama’s ‘foreign affairs’ consisted mostly of overseas travel to pay court to kings and rulers. How fortunate he was for that lucky glitch in taking the first oath.

Then in his second term there were also two swearings-in.   He took the first oath privately, with few in attendance on Sunday, January 20, and then for the public he repeated the ceremony on Monday, January 21. It is this second oath we are now seeing playing out. This time he was not so lucky. The emphasis is on foreign affairs, his weakest suit. His foreign policy, missing in action, is a disaster because he is not qualified by nature to take charge of events as the chart demands.  We have two more years of this administration playing out, and since Mr. Obama has no stomach for his role as commander-in-chief,  these will be perilous times indeed. From the various signatures in the chart itself, the relationship between the chief executive, the media and the military, will be tested to the limits. It does not look like a happy ending, with such powerful forces arrayed against the president’s authority.

Looking ahead to the election of 2016, the new chart will be formed at noon on January 20, 2017. This chart presents something relatively unique: the Sun (the chief executive) is not buttressed by either Mercury (print media) or Neptune (TV) as it has so often been in the past. It means a different kind of president, and if we are lucky a man/woman with enough integrity and strength of character to resist the traditional “slings and arrows” the mainstream media will aim against anyone not of their political persuasion. But an esoteric signature, the Part of Fortune, falls in the Tenth House, the chief executive’s house, and God willing, the ultimate choice of president will eventually benefit everyone – except those fractious individuals who revel in anarchy and have an abnormal desire to exert their own power. And with several planets in Capricorn, when entitlements and benefits are cut – as they will surely have to be no matter who wins – there may be sporadic outbursts of rebellion – or calculated riots – such as were seen In two entitlement societies, Greece and France. The outcome, of course, will depend on how well the new president manages his chart –and stays the course.

Since we have few clues as to who will even run let alone win in 2016, the only thing we know is that if this individual takes the oath of office on the traditional day he or she will face challenges of a wholly different nature. First of all, Congress, and the masses, i.e. the electorate, as well as women in general, will play a more prominent role. The mainstream media will awaken from its long stupor, and if the right president is elected, they will not be able to run roughshod over the new president as they have done successfully ever since the Nixon era. This will be a people’s presidency and, though it cannot happen all at once – considering the horrendous debt this and previous administrations have generated – there will be a concerted effort to rein in profligate spending. With a lucky Jupiter correlating with freedom and liberty and justice, in the Sixth House – a service oriented house – there should be a significant rise in jobs and employment opportunities. Human nature, however, does not turn on a dime – and the quest for self-aggrandizement, and power from opposition forces, never ceases in politics, it just changes hands. It is the responsibility of an awakened and determined electorate to make a difference. Otherwise inertial will invite the wrong people to the party.

With regard to foreign affairs, there is one transit to be aware of, no matter who the president is, and that is Uranus, the planet of upheaval, anarchy, and independence. It is in the sign of Aries, ruled by hot-headed, passionate Mars, and indicates that we will have almost 7 more years to cope with young revolutionaries of all stripes and para-military types behaving unpredictably and ruthlessly, and coming from all countries. Some groups will insist they are searching for freedom, and indeed there will be legitimate groups that come under this umbrella, but foreign born groups such as ISIS, who have at their core a desire for a Caliphate and world domination no matter how long it takes, will succeed or fail to the extent that this new president succeeds or fails. And for that reason they are far more dangerous than those racial outbursts ,promoted by agitators, that get blown out of proportion in media coverage. But in general, with a chief executive who has the vision and moral clarity, the chart indicates that foreign affairs will substantially improve under the leadership of a true chief executive. If however, an ill-informed electorate, too lazy to educate themselves, and susceptible to propaganda rather than the truth, sends the wrong man or women to the White House, it will mean that Americans will have nobody to blame but themselves.

To sum up, then, this new 2017 chart in general suggests a turning to more traditional methods of governing in all institutions. For some this will be painful, since we have found ourselves for so long mired in a culture where good – such as respect for life – is considered wrong-headed and anti-women, and killing the unborn is accepted as a Constitutional right. Respect for God and Christianity have come under heavy attack, more so in this administration than almost any other. But removing God from all public institutions means the government intends to be unfettered by any moral strictures, citing separation of church and state as a feeble excuse.  But according to this new chart, reforms will nevertheless be initiated if for no other reason than spiritual Neptune will be in the gentle sign of Pisces for 14 years; enough time to affect a generation of youngsters. But bringing God back into public life will depend heavily on the resolve of this new president and Congress. In a way, the chart for 2017 suggests an anti-establishment figure, since the Sun stands alone. And for this reason, even if she were to win the nomination, it does not favor someone like Hillary Clinton.

Finally, the chart has no axes to grind, morally or politically. It is what it is, and some human will have to fit in and take control and direct the action. This chart also cannot predict whether an individual attains office in a close election by corrupt voting practices, and that has certainly happened many times. But generally speaking , with the chart’s Saturn in Sagittarius ’responsible management’ rather than a mindless need to control and dominate everyone and everything will be back in fashion. While it may not happen all at once, with the right leadership, it will come to pass. Meanwhile, batten down the hatches, really rough seas still lie ahead.

Alexandra Mark, Ph.D.

(Author: Astrology for the Aquarian Age; Marriage: Made in Heaven; The Pied Pipers of Sex; and Let’s Get Martha: How the Feds Went Crime Shopping. The author has produced a scientific, double-blind statistical study of Marriage and Divorce.)

CHRISTIAN AMERICA, LIKE IT OR NOT!

As if there weren’t enough burning issues on both sides of the political spectrum to irritate us, along comes Charles Haynes, and in the name of Christian principles no less, attempts to ignite unnecessary bush fires in order to prove his own cock-eyed thesis that in America the “Myth of a ‘Christian nation’ persists despite facts.” (Aug. 23) My first thought after reading his editorial – and after my anger subsided – was how many of those myriads of “culture warriors, pseudo-historians and opportunistic politicians” he mentions have actually spent real time peddling “the myth that America was founded as a Christian nation?” He admits that a majority of Americans believe “that the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation,” and he resents it. Why should that notion be so offensive to Mr. Haynes that he must remind people that what they believe is a nasty piece of fiction? Regardless of whether or not the constitution established America as a Christian nation, why is he so hostile to and offended by those who believe that notion? Why the sense of urgency in needing to dispel the foolish “un-Christian” notion that America is a Christian nation founded upon Judeo/Christian principles? Does he believe we are in mortal danger? Certainly we are not an Islamic nation founded on the teachings of Mohammed. We are not a predominantly Jewish nation like Israel. Lest anyone think he is trying to restore truth and harmony between various factions, he conveniently overlooks the real myth about the so-called separation of church and state, forgetting that the constitution guarantees only that no one religion will dominate, like Catholicism in France, or the Anglican Church in England. Otherwise Americans are free to follow any religious persuasion – or none at all. But here’s how Mr. Haynes twists it: “Because language about a Christian America has long been a staple of Religious right rhetoric, it’s not surprising that acceptance of this patently false interpretation of the constitution is strongest among evangelicals and conservatives.” Eureka! Mr. Hayes comes from the left, and in his mind that makes him right!
So what does he tell us about America? Nothing useful. To bolster his non-Christian America thesis he cites Roger Williams, founder of the Colony of Rhode Island in 1636. But let me cite for him an earlier document: It’s called “The Mayflower compact,” composed by William Bradford in 1620. In it he writes: “We whose names are underwritten…by the grace of God…having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith…a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia.” America, Mr. Haynes, is, always has been, and ever will be a Christian nation, welcoming to all.

America is at a crossroads

 

 

America is at a crossroads –  again.  The looming mid-term 2014 election, probably the most critical one of our times, will determine what kind of future ordinary, working Americans will enjoy – or endure. The so-called “ruling class” that is now known as the Obama administration and Congress will always take care of itself first, since they believe they are under no obligation to live by the rules they impose on others. Not since before the American Revolution when patriots  fought to be free of King George’s tyrannical rule have we had such a stark choice.  True, it’s only a mid-term election but our very future is at stake: two of the paths lead to radically different destinations. The path to the right  leads to a restoration of our Constitutional Liberties and individual, God-given freedoms, while the path to the left leads to domination and ultimate servitude. Overly dramatic assessment? I don’t think so.  We are rapidly losing  – and have already lost much of those unique features that made America a “shining city on the hill;” a beacon of hope to the oppressed.

We’ve had arrogant elitist presidents like Roosevelt and humble men like Truman. We’ve had presidents with great vision like Lincoln and Reagan, and short-sighted presidents like Carter and Clinton.  But we’ve never had anyone like Barack Hussein Obama.  He is at the same time a beckoning and repelling figure. He is, I believe, a man whom Destiny called on not to preside over a great and prosperous nation, but to teach America a sorely needed lesson. Are we a nation under God – or under flawed men?  A born ideologue, Mr. Obama  has in a short space of time exposed the long-hidden, soft underbelly of this nation and wasted no time in taking advantage of it. Under his guidance dependency is not just fostered, but  has become an honorable way of life. Independent Americans, however, are a threat to the Washington elitists’ power structure and to Obama personally.  Why else would he have stated early on that he wanted a militia  under his control, as strong or stronger than our standing army?

This president and this administration have arrogated power in defiance of and contempt for our Constitution.  By fiat a few flawed mortals using propaganda can control every aspect of American culture by employing the tools of guilt and guile.  We fought a revolution for fewer grievances than we now face.  Taxation without representation is back big time  and George III  seems to have  been reincarnated in the body of Barack Obama. But even that affront pales in comparison to the multiple assaults on the American people and the American way of life – always masquerading as benefits, or taking advantage of normal fears about security.

If President Obama wins back the House of Representatives he will own America, and the lemmings among us will follow him over the cliff to certain ruin – if not total destruction. But to their horror they will not find their leader among them at the bottom sharing their pain. He will still be high on the cliff, looking down at the sorry mass of humanity, and with a supercilious smile, and that long pointing figure, he will address the unfortunates writhing  below him:   “Don’t worry; your government is here to help you.”  And that’s the last they will see of him.

If on the other hand we choose the right path, the Democrats will lose both houses of Congress and their unquenchable thirst for power will be stanched,  and slowly a new respect for and appreciation of our Constitution will eventually lead to a restoration of our God-given freedoms.

The burning question is, as we face this critical election, will voters blind to history and the consequences of certain choices, allow Obama to complete his socialist transformation of America because they like him?  Or want to save his presidency?  One might even ask, in light of so many major scandals and assaults on our Constitution, why is Obama still in office?  No other president could have been so culpable on so many fronts and have avoided impeachment or censure.  Is there something special about Obama that elicits a misguided adoration for him even at the risk of one’s own personal ruin?

Where do our leaders come from? Do special times compel a particular type of individual to come forth and take up the reins of power? Or is it the individual who by his charisma and sheer determination and ambition drives history? Were the New Deal and the Great Society only FDR’s and Lyndon Johnson’s personal dreams that they were able to sell to a disheartened, but receptive country? Or did those presidents respond to a yearning or need they sensed in the public? Were they power mad politicians– or compassionate public servants?  Was our lurch to the Left the result of a long-standing and ongoing process that inevitably led to the election of our first openly radical president who happened to be a black African-American?  What is there about this community organizer from Chicago, an apostle of Saul Alinsky, and a man with a disdain for American values and traditions who promised to fundamentally transform America?  Who asked him to? Did the majority of voters understand his mission when they voted for him?   Who’s running this planet? Mr. Obama and his minions?   Sometimes it seems as though it’s nothing more than the survival of the fittest; the rule of the jungle, with billions of people in the world mired in poverty while their leaders connive ways to keep their power, and enjoy every conceivable material advantage while preaching austerity to the masses. President Obama, probably the most divisive president in our history, talks about “fairness,” but what is it, and who determines what’s fair?  Our president believes he knows, and left to him he will continue to allocate the fruits of our labors according to his Saul Alinsky ideology: Take from the haves and give it to the have-nots.

If we can agree on one thing perhaps it can be that Obama is a mainstream media creation, for without its complicity, a willingness to look the other way, and its utter lack of curiosity surrounding his radical past, Obama could never have become president.  History teaches our elected officials nothing; they dismiss the failures of European socialist societies as merely misguided applications of the right theories by flawed people, and this time they are convinced that they will get it right.

The so-called RINOs among us, the elite establishment figures, if you will, believe that we in the Tea Party movement constitute the extremist elements of the Republican Party, and they insist that only if they attract the moderates can Republicans win elections. And the ‘Establishment’ blithely continues to choose loser after loser in pursuit of their own misguided notion of Utopia.  What so many people forget is that since the Democrats have moved so far left, and in essence have moved moderates with them to the left, those of us with commonsense and traditional values seem to be far right misfits when in fact we are the norm.  But actually our RINOs, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mitt Romney, the Bushes, and even Chris Christie are actually Kennedy Democrats.  They are the tired face of the GOP, while we Tea Party members are its lifeblood, its energy and its future.  But everyone will prosper in the restored America we envision; free of the “We the Government” mentality.

If, as the Bible tells us, there is a season for all things, then I would say that Mr. Obama’s season has come and gone. He may remain in office, but the pendulum of the Celestial Clock has swung as far left as it can go without fomenting a revolution, and it must inevitably turn to the right.  America’s survival as the haven for individual liberty and freedom is on the line. Remember that “we the people” own America, not radical, leftist, self-serving, arrogant, misguided Washington politicians who have forgotten that they are our servants, and this next election will either secure their tyrannical rule  or learn from the painful lesson.

Get Ready

With a critical mid-term election looming, our Campaigner-in-Chief is taking major steps to ensure that the Senate stays securely Democrat and the House of Representatives is returned to him.   America is Obama’s play toy and he will use every weapon available to make sure nobody takes it away from him.   They used to call President Reagan the ‘Teflon president’ because the liberals couldn’t get any dirt to stick to him, but this president has a much slipperier façade and thanks to a compliant state-run media, even accountability for the deaths in “Fast and Furious” and Benghazi  slide right off him.  It’s always someone else’s fault; like Sergeant Schultz, he knows nothing!  He makes “Slick Willy” and “Tricky Dick” look like pathetic amateurs in the art of deception.   By some strange alchemy Obama’s fingerprints are never on anything he touches and ruins –both domestic and foreign.  Why?  Because he has untold numbers of sycophantic enablers to wipe them off. Furthermore, this president is a graduate of the Saul Alinsky School of Personal Destruction, and it was said of him by another proud Alinsky graduate that he is “a natural undisputed master of agitation.” Mr. Obama learned early on that one cannot achieve radical goals through compelling arguments, but only by destroying the opposition using ridicule and propaganda –i.e. lying.   Mr. Obama has only one major objective as president – besides enjoying himself at taxpayers’ expense – and that is to “transform America.”  He declared that passionately and proudly in an electrifying campaign speech that probably won him the election.  His wife bragged about her husband’s objective; one she shared, and yet nobody bothered to ask:  “From what?” and “Into what?” We now know what he had in mind, and there are few areas in either our traditional institutions, or in the lives of ordinary Americans that have not experienced the constricting, boa constrictor-like  effects of Obama’s monster bureaucracy;  a ‘monster’ trained to not attack those who feed it.

 

No matter the millions of people who are now dependent upon government handouts through food stamps, free cell phones, or other beguiling entitlements, too many Americans have succumbed to the toxic influence of a president that King George III would be proud of. George Washington, however, would cry:  “Did I not warn you?  You have surrendered your God-given freedoms in exchange for security; now you will lose both!”  To which Benjamin Franklin would undoubtedly add:  “You destroyed the Republic we gave you and the stability it stands for, and succumbed to the empty blandishments of radicals because you had neither the wits nor the faith to protect it.”

I am an eternal optimist, and I firmly believe that from the grassroots will come America’s salvation.

Hello world!

Who am I? I am Newport based Christian, author, tea party activist, supporter of Sarah Palin and Israel, lover of truth, justice and the American way. I have contributed numerous published letters and opinions to the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Boston Herald, the Manchester Union, and Newport Daily News. I hope that by starting this blog, I can reach a wider audience of like minded patriots.