Fat Lester Formally Endorses Newt Gingrich

The campaign of former House Speaker and current GOP Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich received a major boost today when internet / social media extraordinaire Fat Lester officially endorsed the former Congressman from Georgia.

Fat Lester, whose real name is Peter Egan, had not previously endorsed a candidate, citing favorable views of numerous candidates early on in the GOP nominating contest, along with the fact that he personally knows more than one of the candidates originally in the race as reasons for refraining from issuing an endorsement.

(Newt Gingrich consults with NOLA Tea Party leaders including Fat Lester)

However, when Herman Cain announced that he was suspending his campaign in light of a series of frivolous, racially-motivated attacks by several women on the left who were allegedly paid millions combined in exchange for levying the false and defamatory charges. Needless to say, these women were acting on behalf of the Obama Administration/Campaign (they're one-in-the-same), including at least one Obama Administration employee and the next-door neighbor of Obama's speech writer, it left Gingrich as the only candidate in the race with whom Lester has spoken with at length and in person regarding the challenges facing the country and the solutions required to get the nation back on the right track.

(GOP Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich and Right-Wing Conspirator Fat Lester)

That said, personal affiliation with a candidate was not the sole criteria upon which Lester based the decision. Lester is also a strong supporter of former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and identifies with Santorum's views on most issues, in particular the one nobody likes to talk about: the "A-word".

(Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich introduces himself to the VRWC)

This conflict made endorsing a candidate difficult even after Cain, whom Lester had helped raise funds via a Tea Party Rally with over two thousand attendees (back before he'd even announced he was running) at which Cain was the keynote speaker; announced that his campaign was effectively over and that he (Cain) would be endorsing Gingrich. However, after three states have held their nominating contests, with Santorum's victory in Iowa failing to translate into momentum going forward, Lester decided Gingrich is the candidate most likely to defeat Obama in a 1-on-1 match-up due to his unnaturally high IQ (he must have 50 IQ points over Obama and no less than 120 over former Speaker Nancy Pelosi) as well as his superior debate skills.

(Naturally, the media was not invited to the closed-door session)

While Fat Lester had speculated back in June that Gingrich may ultimately represent the Republican Party's best shot at victory in 2012, he had withheld making an endorsement so early on in the campaign for obvious reasons, some of which are stated above.

Lester is not going to merely informally endorse the former Speaker by issuing a public announcement on one of his blogs. Rather, he will be putting his money (something he has very little of) where his mouth is, and will be making a financial contribution to both Gingrich and Santorum's respective campaigns, with Gingrich receiving roughly twice the amount that will be given to Santorum. Should the latter win any more states or do anything else that results in his building of momentum with the majority of states yet to vote, he will likely receive additional funding from Lester proportionate to any progress he makes in terms of gaining ground on Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

(Newt Gingrich thanks Fat Lester for his advice and endorsement)

Fat Lester would like to encourage anyone and everyone reading this who cares about the general welfare of the United States of America to do likewise and make a donation to the Gingrich campaign using the link below. He would like for you to do this regardless of who you are, what your party affiliation is or which candidate you're supporting. Anyone can donate, regardless of one's income.

DONATE TO NEWT'S CAMPAIGN

America's Next President Poses with Fat Lester's Sister

If Fat Lester can come up with $100 spread out over a few months, so can you. It's time we take our country back, and we're going to need everyone to chip in whatever they can in order to save the nation.

The most important people were seated closest to the candidate

Another four years of Obama holding the office of the Presidency, and the United States will look more like Cuba than the prosperous one-time superpower where anyone who was willing to work hard could achieve success not attainable in most places throughout the world.

Fat Lester believes Newt Gingrich is the candidate with the best chance to take in 57+% of the vote required to win after the millions of fraudulent votes that will be cast by democrats are accounted for. In swing states, the real number needed to win could reach as high as 63-64%. In order to win this election, we will need to get 100% of the eligible voters in this country who want to preserve the freedom, prosperity and opportunity for which America was founded and will always be remembered (in the event Obama wins and the nation is disassembled or integrated into a North American Union). In order to do that, we will need to contribute whatever we can without losing our homes or failing to put food on our respective tables.

Please donate to Newt's campaign. If you support Ron Paul or Rick Santorum, donate to them as well. Fat Lester will be donating $120, $80 to the Gingrich campaign and $40 to the Santorum campaign. Please make one sacrifice on an item you can live without (as long as it's not something you're considering buying from Fat Lester or his affiliated businesses ;-), and instead use that money to help defeat the great American Saboteur-in-Chief.

---

On a totally separate note, it appears Mitt Romney's got some problems on the horizon:

Why I Will NOT Be Voting for Ron Paul in the GOP Primary

The only way he'd get my vote is if his opponent were Barack Obama, and even then I'd pull the lever holding my breathe that those classified security briefings he'd receive would bring about a 180 in terms of his foreign policy views and initiatives.

The one area which the United States federal government has undisputed constitutional authority to spend taxpayer money is on the military and defense, and Congressman Paul's foreign policy views are simply too wrong for me to vote for him against any other Republican.

Ron Paul and the other GOP candidates for President debate

I like Ron Paul. I'd like him w whole lot better if is position on foreign policy and the role of the United States military in maintaining global order while eliminating threats to the Constitution and the republic wasn't so badly skewed.

The thing about him that is so maddening is that on just about every single issue foreign policy excluded, he is right-on-the-money, and towers over the other candidates in the GOP primary in terms of his positions on the issues and his rationale for said positions. However, when it comes to foreign policy, Rep. Paul has convinced me that were he to be elected President, he'd either very quickly realize how wrong he has been all these years in light of the classified security briefings new Presidents receive; or he'd transition the United States into a new Russian territory (like Cuba, for example).

It's easy for Americans to get caught up in an illusion that lends to a belief that the world is run by sane, rational and civilized people who share the values most Americans hold dear. Unfortunately, this is simply not the case.

Communism will always be a threat to this or any republic. The only thing standing in the way of another world war that would make the previous two pale in comparison in terms of the devastation it would unleash is the United States military, and the brave men and women who serve our country and defend our constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Rep. Paul's stated desire to adopt an isolationist foreign policy while slashing the size and potency of the military, including but not limited to the withdrawal of troops from strategic locations around the world, is what makes him a dangerous candidate, and one for whom I would not vote unless I had absolutely no other choice (meaning if he were to actually win the 2012 GOP nomination).

Since Herman Cain dropped out of the race, I have yet to formally endorse a candidate, but plan to do so in the near future in an upcoming post.

Help Restore Louisiana's Wetlands & Coastal Ecosystem

I recently created a petition to the United States Congress (House and Senate) and the U.S. President, asking the respective bodies and the individuals in positions of leadership within those respective bodies to please commit to restoring Louisiana's wetlands and coastal ecosystem.

You can read (and sign) the petition here:  https://www.change.org/petitions/restore-louisianas-wetlands-and-coastal-ecosystem

I would very much appreciate it if anyone and everyone reading this would take just a moment to check out the petition, and if you agree with it, please also sign it. It's pretty hard to envision a scenario in which anyone would have any major objections to this goal.

Change.org|Start an Online Petition »

How Evil is George Soros?

Is George Soros the world's most evil man? The question relates to and includes women too, for whatever it's worth. I have my reasons for phrasing it in an exclusively male context (If you must know... In all seriousness, does anyone really believe that any woman who is not an ex-wife or ex-girlfriend --- your ex-wife or girlfriend to be specific, not just anyone's --- could be more evil than the world's most evil man? . . . I didn't think so).

Is he (Soros) even evil to begin with? Or, is it possible for a person to be as genuinely confused about right-and-wrong as Uncle Soros would have us all believe is the case with himself?

The question unfortunately begs numerous other questions best left to a theologian to answer. Some of these include:

• What is evil?
• Is evil defined by actions, behaviors, words, beliefs and/or some combination thereof?
• Who is to say what is evil?
• Is morality relative? What about ethics?
• Is it possible that some people who are born with fully functioning brains and organs lack what most of us would refer to as a conscience?
• Who am I to judge ("Judge not, lest thee be judged")?
• Can evil exist without the existence of God (a question for athiests and agnostics, obviously)?
• Does evil exist period?

Is there a certain threshold as to what constitutes evil in any sense (actions, thoughts, behaviors, etc.), or is whether or not something "is evil" determined on a case-by-case basis? If so, by whom (another question for non-believers, who for the record I am not judging in any way, shape, manner or form, and against whom I have not one iota of angst)?

I'm not going to attempt to answer any of those questions, but for those who wish to delve into them further, I will provide to the resources I utilize to help wrap my mind around these concepts:

• Regarding Moral Conscience
• Regarding Good and Evil
• Regarding the Nature and Sources of Morality
• Regarding Sin

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other person that is alive at present that I'd consider to be "more" evil than George Soros, at least according to my understanding of evil*. And yes, that includes serial killers, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro (whom I'm still 98% certain died in 2007 or 2008, but is still "officially" alive, so he's included here for the purposes of conversation).
In the case of Ahmadinejad, while he may aspire to kill more Jews than Hitler himself was responsible for murdering, he lacks the capacity to single-handedly orchestrate such a massacre, and could only succeed in doing so with significant help from George Soros --- which he has gotten. That said, Soros has the ability to put a stop to the nutjob in Iran if he wished to do so. Unfortunately, he does not, and in fact has been an integral part of Iran's obtaining nuclear weapons, not to mention the fact that for at least the past three years, Iran's nuclear program has proceeded without a hitch, but with the blessing of the U.S. Commander in Chief, who as we all know was hand-picked by Soros, who propagandized America for long enough to get him elected. Not that he really needed to, Soros' SOS Project (SOS is an acronym for Secratary of State, which makes the complete name of this sinister undertaking by George Soros the Secretary of State Project) has been such an unprecedented success that Obama would only have needed to win about 35% of the popular vote in any of the states he won in order to "win" those states.

For anyone unfamiliar with the SOS Project, Soros funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into statewide elections for the position of Secretary of State. He did this across the entire United States. The mission behind Project SOS is to ensure that in any election between a democrat and a Republican in which the statewide demographics are such that a democrat victory would be anything less than proposerous to even conceive of --- meaning that a vast majority of the voting population would be less than 100% certain of a fraudulent outcome should the democrat emerge on top --- that the democrat wins each and every one of those elections regardless of what it takes to meet those ends.

The responsibilities of the Secretary of State on a statewide level are far different than the position at the federal level. For states, the SoS's job is typically to oversee business and corporate filings, and to manage and coordinate elections for each given state. Relative to any other position in a typical U.S. state government, the SoS has the most power to illegally influence the outcome of an election in a variety of ways, and Soros' minions have figured out all of them, mastering most in the process.

Take the 2010 Nevada election for U.S. Senate between Harry Reid (who has been termed the "Second-Most Evil Man in America") and Tea Party favorite Sharon Angle. All of the polls leading up to and even on election day (exit polls in the case of election day itself) showed Angle with a comfortable lead ranging from 3.5 - 5.5 percentage points. Not a blowout by any stretch of the imagination, but outside the margin of error for all but a few of the more obscure polls that were released. Nevada's Secretary of State, who was effectively appointed by Soros via the SOS Project, contracted with --- of all people --- the SEIU (an uber-liberal, proactive democrat PAC. The name is an acronym for the Service Employees International Union) to manage, maintain and perform "maintenance" on Nevada's electronic voting machines.

This directly resulted in two (2) different types of election fraud. Not surprisingly, both just "happened" to work to Harry Reid's advantage. The two different forms of mass election fraud from Nevada's 2010 race are:

1. Thousands and perhaps even tens of thousands of the machines were pre-programmed to cast votes for Harry Reid. Upon each vote being registered and the voting form cleared for the next voter, the device was set to vote for Harry Reid by default!! Wait, it gets worse. When intelligent and informed voters with stable minds went in to cast their ballots, hundreds of voters observed their vote for Sharon Angle switched at the last second by the machine. The switch occurred after the voter had pressed the "cast ballot" button, but was apparently visible for just long enough for several hundred voters to take notice. We can only guess at how many hundreds or thousands just pressed the button and left the polling place, never even stopping to consider that a United States Senator would resort to such scandalous and illegal tactics for the purpose of subverting the democratic process and the will of the people.
2. In heavily democratic precincts (those most predictable and most likely to favor Reid over Angle by a wide margin based on demographics and past voter behavior alone), numerous precincts submitted more votes than there were registered voters residing within and/or registered to vote within the precinct. For anyone wondering how that happens, there are two scenarios that in all likelihood both occurred. The first involved the same people voting more than once. It's no secret that this goes on in every election involving a democrat without exception, and has ever since the days when the democrat party was heavily aligned with the Klan (sadly, not much has changed on that front), with both organizations' (the democrats and the KKK) primary objective being the subversion of the rights of black U.S. citizens. The second scenario us unfortunately also fairly common in elections involving democrats. This latter scenario involves union thugs simply pulling the lever over-and-over again for Reid after the polls had closed.

When all was said and done, Harry Reid was "reelected" by a slim margin. TRANSLATION: Sharon Angle won the election by 6-10 percentage points, but Reid was reelected anyway due to the rampant fraud that occurred, which was on display for all to see, and of which little attempt was made by the guilty parties to conceal the sinister actions and intents. With a so-called Department of Justice that is in cahoots with Reid, Obama and the democrats, it came as little surprise that there was no federal investigation into these widely documented reports and claims, for which the evidence is so readily available one could fill the Mercedes-Benz Superdome in New Orleans with all the witnesses and documents supportive of the allegations.

The point of this story is that none of this (Harry Reid's fraudulent reelection) would have been possible if it weren't for a Hungarian-born devil of a man by the name of George Soros.

VIDEO: George Soros Discussing China's
Role in the New World Order





* NOTE: For the purposes of discussion and debate, I am obviously taking a leave of absence from my usual approach of deferring judgment to someone I deem more qualified than myself to judge other human beings (that would be God, for those of you in Eugene, Oregon).

Obama's Troubles the Result of His Policies, Not His Approach

I recently came across a Bloomberg commentary piece written by a man named William Pesek. The article was loosely structured around a premise asserting that U.S. President Barack Obama and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard have much in common.

While I do not necessarily dispute the premise in and of itself, the author's reasoning could not have been more off-the-mark. The main argument in the piece was that neither Obama nor Gillard are "radical" enough to overcome cynical detractors in opposition parties whose only goal is to derail the political ambitions of the two respective leaders.


The author cites GOP opposition to Obama's "Jobs Bill", in particular his unsubstantiated proposal to cut payroll taxes. What Pesek conveniently fails to mention are the accompanying tax and spending increases that render the proposal a net increase in the size and scope of the U.S. federal government.


The following passage from the article best synopsizes the author's misguided logic:

"The only answer for Gillard and Obama is to get radical -- be bold, think big and fight for your ideals. Neither leader seems set to do that, or able to sell their messages."

William Pesek obviously isn't all that attuned to U.S. politics. Obama is by far and without question the most radical president in the history of the United States. Republicans oppose his policies not because they want nothing more than to obstruct him, but because his policies are genuinely bad ideas that have already been tried (two stimulus bills, cash for clunkers, auto and bank bailouts, etc.). The reality is that to Obama, "economic stimulus" translates to "multibillion dollar slush fund for violent union thug donors".

He is the most hyper-partisan president in the nation's history, and indisputably the most corrupt --- and by a wide margin. Never before has a president tripled the nation's debt for no purpose other than to redistribute trillions of dollars in confiscated wealth to campaign donors and political allies. Obama has done so at the direct expense of the American economy.

Most Republicans are not saboteurs, and thus are not motivated to destroy the country and its economy. Anyone who doubts that Obama's treacherous policies and initiatives are designed to do just that is either naive or badly uninformed.

Newt May Be GOP's Best Matchup vs Obama

Newt a Sure-Thing Winner Over Obama in 2012

While Newt Gingrich's campaign staff may be in need of a makeover, he still remains an exceptional candidate. In a one-on-one matchup versus Barack Obama, Newt may well represent the GOP's best shot.

Newt Gingrich at the RLC in New Orleans

Where Newt elevates himself from the rest of the pack is in the specifics of his proposed policies and solutions. He is by far the best of the candidates in the current field at articulating the specific reasons why Obama's policies are destructive for the country, what he would do to correct the problems Obama has caused and why.

I had the privilege during last year's SRLC (Southern Republican Leadership Conference) in New Orleans of attending a private meeting with the former House Speaker in which he met with local Tea Party leaders to discuss the direction of the country. I was extremely impressed with Gingrich's depth and breadth of knowledge about the intricacies of the problems facing the country - both in a practical as well as a legislative sense. Newt would not only win the election should he get the nomination, he has the answers to actually fix the problems plaguing the country.

When I try to envision how each candidate in the GOP primary field would fare in a one-on-one election versus Obama, I see Newt being the least risky candidate. I just cannot see Obama defeating Gingrich in a mono-a-mono matchup. I can't say that about the rest of the candidates.

Newt is probably the most intelligent of the bunch --- the man is a certifiable genius. He is the most accomplished as a legislator, having balanced a budget and secured tax cuts in spite of the Clinton White House. Newt is also probably the best debater of the lot, especially when the debate is occurring between Obama and a Republican.

Make no mistake, Newt would absolutely obliterate Obama in a debate. It wouldn't even be close - not even remotely so. The extent of the shellacking would excite Republicans to cheer him like rabid LSU fans in Tiger Stadium in a home-game against Auburn, while sending Democrats running for cover.

Contrary to what the media would have you believe, the field for the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary features a number of very strong and extremely qualified candidates. Of those candidates, it is my belief at this point that Gingrich offers the best shot at defeating Obama.

Newt at the RLC in New Orleans



Newt Announces 2012 GOP Candidacy



Newt in the New Hampshire GOP Primary Debate

Crowded Conservative GOP Field Bodes Well for Moderates

For the record, I do still fear that my two favorite candidates for the 2012 GOP Presidential Nomination (Herman Cain and Ron Paul) may hurt each other's candidacies by splitting the Tea Party vote and thus diluting each of their chances to capture statewide races, which in turn could potentially result in another moderate winning the nomination - not because he or she is the most popular candidate, but because the other cluster of candidates were too similar on the issues for any one of them to distinguish themselves enough to outshine the rest.

For example, if four in every five of Republican voters want a strong conservative to win the nomination, and there are eight strong conservatives and one moderate in the race, the moderate could end up winning the party nod by virtue of the other candidates destroying each other's chances by splitting up the conservative and Tea Party votes such that a moderate with 20% of the vote would defeat eight candidates who average 10% each, with none of them eclipsing the 20% held by the moderate.

We all saw how well the moderate Republican fared against Obama in 2008. I hope the the candidates do not allow their personal ambitions to work counterproductive to each of their stated goals by dividing up the conservative vote in such a way that the least desirable candidate gets in thanks to the crowded field of hard-right candidates.

War on Drugs May Work to Ron Paul's Advantage in 2012

The U.S. government's insane bipartisan position on the "need" for the War on Drugs may well be the issue that converts me into a Ron Paul supporter before all is said and done.

I've already stated my support for Government outsider Herman Cain in the 2012 Republican Primaries. However, with so many good candidates in the race, my vote will factor in performance of the respective candidates in the primary elections leading up to the Louisiana GOP Primary. Specifically, I am not going to vote for a candidate who hasn't won a primary by the time Louisiana's nominating contest rolls around, and I reserve the right to vote for a candidate who may not necessarily be my first choice based on among other things, a candidates respective standings in the race to be the party's 2012 Presidential nominee.

So while Herman Cain may be my first choice, and while I would ideally like to see him win the party nomination (and ask Ron Paul to be his running mate), should Cain fail to make a splash in the states leading up to Louisiana's primary, I may well cast my vote for someone whose campaign is in play for the nomination. My first choice among the other candidates Cain excluded is Ron Paul, who is almost neck-and-neck with Cain in the race to win over my vote. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are in a virtual tie for third, and I could feasibly see myself voting for any of these candidates should the others fall out of contention early on.

Of the four names mentioned, the one who has gained the most traction with me as a voter and Tea Party activist in the time since the 2008 elections is Ron Paul. Many of my readers may remember my cold reception to Ron Paul's candidacy in 2008, even as he took the digital world by storm with his staunch libertarian beliefs and apparent disdain for the government.

I did not consider Congressman Paul to be a serious candidate in 2008. My how things have changed. I not only would consider voting for Paul in the GOP Primary this go-round, I have an unprecedented level of optimism for both he and Cain --- two candidates who in other election cycles would have been quickly relegated to the realm of "fringe candidates" who are quickly dismissed by the media and voters alike. Typically, these candidates might get a few percentage points in each of their party's primary elections, but never come close to actually winning one.

I believe the political dynamics this go-round are markedly different from any other election cycle in my lifetime, and I think the very same positions on the very same issues and dynamics that in years past would all but disqualify men like Ron Paul and Herman Cain may not only work to their advantage this time around, but may even be significant enough to put both men into real contention.

There are just so many things wrong with the so-called war on drugs. First and foremost, the very premise of such prohibitions are un-American and unconstitutional. America's war on drugs has created a real war in Mexico pitting the nation, its government and its law enforcement agencies against drug-gang militias that have killed tens of thousands of people in the last few years alone.

How many lives must be lost before the U.S. government decides to start behaving like adults with regard to the issue? How many non-violent Americans whose only crime was pursuing happiness in a manner the U.S. government deems illegitimate must be locked up, taken away from their families, losing their jobs and any prospect of a normal remainder of their lives in the process before Americans say "enough is enough".

For all the Democrats' nefarious behavior in terms of their rewarding campaign contributors with big government contracts, bailouts and other corporate welfare, the Republicans are on-par in their support of the "Big Law Enforcement" industry, whose lobby is hell-bent on seeing to it that drugs remain illegal for the foreseeable future.

Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race who I am confident would do everything within his capability to end this expensive and ultimately counter-productive war. In the end, that may go an awfully long way to securing my vote in Louisiana.

Author's Note:  For the record, my position regarding the war on drugs is in no way an endorsement of use and/or abuse of illicit substances. I do believe addiction in America is a serious problem, but one that is not solved by incarcerating Americans who develop addictions to mood-altering chemicals. A propensity to abuse alcohol and drugs is passed down genetically from addicts to their children. Technically, addictive disorders are a medical illness, and putting people in jail for suffering from a genetic illness seems as un-American to me as anything with which I am familiar.

John Edwards Indictment Not Without Peculiarities

While scanning the news headlines this morning, I came across a story about the fiasco involving former Democrat U.S. Senator and Presidential Candidate John Edwards' ongoing federal indictment/prosecution. There was nothing in particular about the headline or story that raised my eyebrows. However, there is one key detail about the matter that is very peculiar to say the least.

Specifically, I am referring to the Democrats' history of defending their own against media scrutiny, and propensity to circle the wagons in defense of their own whenever one of them runs afoul of the law, voters, media, etc. To take it a step further, that the mainstream media (which we all know is effectively an extension of the Democrat Party) actively tried to cover up the story for so long indicates to me that there was most likely a request made by one or more high-ranking Democrats that the lurid details of Edwards' affair be kept secret - at least until after the 2008 elections.

Based on the history of similar events in years past, I am hesitant to believe that the Justice Department decided to go after Edwards on its own and without any prompting from someone within the current administration. Assuming that this is correct, it is likewise reasonable to assume that the person who ultimately gave the order was none other than President Obama himself, given that such a brazen request would not have been made by his cabinet without either a direct order from the President himself, or at the very least him signing off on the indictment and prosecution.

I can't help but wonder what Edwards did to piss off Obama, who by all accounts appears to be much more involved in micromanaging the Justice Department than any other President in recent memory. Could Edwards' prosecution be the result of unflattering comments made during the '08 Democrat primaries? Or was it something else potentially involving someone else?

If there's one thing we do know, it's that Democrats don't go after their own unless its personal or in some way related to the advancement of an agenda (such as the Democrat calls for Weiner to resign only came after his scandal kept the attention off of the Ryan Medicare plan for almost two weeks). In this case, there doesn't appear to be any legislative goal, which leads me to believe it is personal retaliation by Obama for some unknown slight.

Every mainstream media organization in America worked tirelessly to cover up the story of Edwards' infidelity for more than a year. They never did release the story. As I'm sure most of you recall, the National Enquirer broke the story after the NYT, LAT, USAT, WP, AP and all the others passed on the opportunity. That very fact alone suggests that somewhere along the way Edwards said or did something that angered Obama enough for him to seek retribution by way of a federal indictment.

Do you remember something that I may have forgotten regarding the relationship between the two men (Edwards and Obama)? If you have a theory about what former Senator John Edwards may have done to invite the wrath of Obama, please be sure to share it in the comments.

If you simply disagree with my theory regarding Edwards' indictment, please feel free to voice that (and/or any other sentiments you may have about the case) in the comments as well.

Obama to Blame for Food, Fuel Inflation

Wal-Mart CEO Bill Simon recently issued a dire prediction for the month of June. Specifically, Simon has gone on record and predicted that the long-anticipated inflation stemming from the Pelosi/Bush bailouts of 2008 and the Obama Stimulus will set in with a vengeance during the month of June.

Inflation is "going to be serious," according to Simon. "Except for fuel costs, U.S. consumers haven't seen much in the way of inflation for almost a decade, so a broad-based increase in prices will be unprecedented in recent memory."

There has been much talk in recent months over the prospect of food prices increasing dramatically. Food prices, like most other prices, are being driven up by inflation first and foremost.

What causes inflation?

Remember all those bailouts? Obama's trillion-dollar stimulus? All the money borrowed from China and printed by the U.S. Federal Reserve?

All of the above drastically increase the rate of inflation. Food and fuel prices are the first of which people take notice because they are commodities that everyone must buy. Most other prices lag behind because people can choose not to buy non-essential items, which causes retailers to lower prices in hopes of stimulating buying by the consumers. While the retailer is feeling the full effects of inflation, competition over marketshare prevents them from immediately passing it along to the consumer. Instead, they keep prices as low as possible for as long as possible in order to try to gain a few percentage points worth of their opponents' market share in hopes of converting that chunk of business into profit at a later date once the economy has recovered and consumer behavior has returned to its normal levels of activity.

That said, eventually retailers, grocers and the various other merchants will have to raise prices in order to meet their costs and hopefully earn a small margin (profit). When that happens, consumers will feel the full effect of the coming widespread inflation.

For a more in-depth explanation of the relationship between Obama's stimulus and inflation, check out this article, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal back in February of 2009.

Atlas Shrugged the Movie (Part 1) Now Playing in Theaters

Part one of the Atlas Shrugged movie is now playing in theaters across the country.  I've been waiting a decade (since I first picked up the book) for this movie to debut.  And what do you know, but the timing of this movie's release couldn't have been any better.  Atlas Shrugged is the closest thing to an official Tea Party charter as exists, and with a looter government in Washington rapidly confiscating wealth by way of inflation (and taxes), but especially inflation, it almost seems as if this movie was more than a half century in the making by design.

In any case, I this will be the first movie I've gone to see at a theater since April of 2005.

The official movie trailer can be seen below.

Hermain Cain Meets Fat Lester

I had the honor and privilege of meeting 2012 GOP Presidential Candidate Herman Cain at a Tea Party event in Mandeville, LA a few weeks back. Mr. Cain was the keynote speaker at the event, which also featured contributions from New Orleans radio personality John Osterlind, St. Tammany Parish radio personality Jeff Crouere and distinguished gentleman and businessman John d'Hemecourt of Abita Springs.

[Photo: GOP Presidential Nominee Herman Cain visits with right-wing conspirator Peter Egan Jr., aka: "Fat Lester"]

Mr. Cain delivered an inspiring speech in which he laid out his philosophy as a candidate for the United States Republican Presidential Nomination in 2012. He spoke of the government's reckless and ever-growing irresponsibility, and promised that if chosen to represent the Republican Party in the 2012 Presidential Election, that he would be the candidate who finally reversed course in hopes of righting the ship. The question implicit in the words "in hopes of" is not whether or not Herman Cain possesses the ability to lead the country back to greatness, but whether or not the unprecedented spending and borrowing that has taken place since the Democrats seized the House in the 2006 mid-term elections in the face of an already massive debt (present BEFORE they took office - they've increased it by an average of $4.07 billion per day SINCE they gained control of Congress). Each year that Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House of Representatives the Congress set a new record for national debt. That rise has increased dramatically since the election of Barack Obama as President.

Mr. Cain's speech was not particularly heavy on policy or specific issues per se, as can be expected for what ultimately wound up being something of a quasi-announcement that he would seek the GOP nomination for the Presidency. While technically at the time of the event his now-campaign was simply announcing the formation of a "Presidential Exploratory Committee", he left little doubt that he planned to enter the Republican contest as something of a "dark horse" candidate (no pun intended).

[Photo: GOP Presidential Candidate Herman Cain addresses the crowd at a Tea Party event in Mandeville, Louisiana]

The fact is that Herman Cain is not a politician, and has none of the baggage that all career politicians who have been in Washington for any significant period of time bring with them. Perhaps most significantly, the reluctance to implement the "radical" changes (as Chuck U. Shumer and Dingy Harry like to say) necessary to ensure the long-term economic and financial viability of the United States, the Federal Reserve Bank id its currency. The reality is that the last President in recent memory to positively impact the state of the government had a successful career in the private sector before seeking the governorship of the only state where Hollywood icons have repeatedly contested for (and won) multiple terms as chief executive. Those that have followed (and those that preceded) him have been career public sector elected representatives whose idea of running a business involves laundering taxpayer money to campaign donors who then reinvest it in that Congressman or Senator's "business" ventures, and look where they've taken the country.

Of all the names mentioned so far as possible Republican Presidential contenders, with the exception of Donald Trump who is only putting on a show for the sake of publicity and who is a RINO (Republican In Name Only) at best, none can boast the kind of private sector or executive-level success and experience in general that Herman Cain has achieved. Cain, the son of working-class parents in Georgia, grabbed the American dream by the (fill-in your choice of body part). He knows what working people go through in life, knowledge foreign to far too many in the Washington establishment in both parties.

Finally, in Herman Cain Americans have an opportunity to vote for a black man for President of the United States, not because he's black and it's long-past time the country elected a person of color if for no other reason than to break the taboo, but because if his resume, his mammoth intellect and his charisma are any indication, there's a very strong probability that Herman Cain may very well be the best and most qualified man for the job.

I've now met three four of the top six or seven names being mentioned in association with the GOP Presidential nominating contest, albeit one has been mentioned only as a potential candidate for Vice President as he has repeatedly proclaimed that he planned to seek reelection to his state's governorship and would not seek the Presidency - at least not before his 42nd birthday. This Southern Governor only became eligible to run for the Presidency since the summer of 2006. Anyone not know to whom I am referring?

I know this has gotten a little bit off topic since this is a post about Herman Cain. However, this latter candidate whom I have refused to name (in this post - c'mon, you should know this one) presents a couple of very interesting dynamics as a potential VP consideration. First off, in the ostensibly unlikely event he should team up with Herman Cain, they would represent the first major-party non-white Presidential ticket in the nation's history. Second, should this person join up with another candidate such as say Newt Gingrich, whom I have also met during the SRLC last year (2010 for those of you in Rio Linda) when he consulted with myself and about two-dozen other Tea Party leaders in New Orleans about the prospect of a potential Presidential bid, it MIGHT present a scenario in which I could potentially vote for a different ticket IF the Herman Cain campaign had not won any primary contests before Louisiana's, MAY feel compelled to vote for a ticket other than Herman Cain's. Unless and until that happens, at this point, he's definitely got my vote in the Louisiana GOP Presidential Primary.

[PHOTO: (from left) Peter and Pamela Egan, Herman Cain and Fat Lester]

About Herman Cain (Source: Wikipedia)

Herman Cain (born December 13, 1945) is an American newspaper columnist, businessman, political activist, and radio talk-show host from Georgia. He is best known as the former chairman and CEO of Godfather's Pizza. He is a former deputy chairman (1992–94) and chairman (1995–96) of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Cain's newspaper column is distributed by North Star Writers Group. He currently lives in the Atlanta suburbs.

Cain was born and raised in Georgia by working class parents. He earned a bachelor's degree in Mathematics at Morehouse College in 1967, and while working for the U.S. Department of the Navy, a master's degree in computer science from Purdue University.

After completing his master's degree, Cain left the Department of the Navy and began working for Coca-Cola as a business analyst. In 1977, he joined Pillsbury where he rose to the position of vice president by the early 1980s. He left his executive post to work for Burger King – a Pillsbury subsidiary at the time – managing 400 stores in the Philadelphia area. Under Cain's leadership, his region went from the least profitable for Burger King to the most profitable in three years. This prompted Pillsbury to appoint him president and CEO of Godfather's Pizza, another of their then-subsidiaries. Within 14 months, Cain had returned Godfather's to profitability. In 1988, Cain and a group of investors bought Godfather's from Pillsbury. Cain continued as CEO until 1996, when he resigned to become CEO of the National Restaurant Association – a trade group and lobby organization for the restaurant industry – where he had previously been chairman concurrently with his role at Godfather's.

Cain hosted The Herman Cain Show on Atlanta talk radio station News Talk 750 WSB, a CNN radio affiliate until February 2011 and serves as a commentator for Fox News Business and a syndicated columnist distributed by the North Star Writers Group. In 2009, Cain founded "Hermanator's Intelligent Thinkers Movement" (HITM), aimed at organizing 100,000 activists in every congressional district in the United States in support of a strong national defense, the FairTax, tax cuts, energy independence, capping and cutting government spending, restructuring Social Security, and defending the U.S. Constitution. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain

David Vitter, Jerome Corsi and Obama's Eligibility

I recently came upon a post by Dean Striker at No-Ruler.net in which the author poses a couple of questions:

1. Why the silence within Congress on President Obama's proof of citizenship?
   
2. If there is a single Congressman or Senator who cares deeply enough about the United States Constitution and the requirements that must be met before someone can lawfully run for the office of United States President, who is it and why haven't we heart from him, her or them?
   

We all know what they say about assumptions, so I'll refrain from repeating it here. That said, suffice it to say that Mr. Striker hadn't done his homework (at least not thoroughly) before assuming and stating publicly that no U.S. Congressman or Senator has acknowledged the constitutional crisis posed by President Obama's apparent lack of eligibility for the office of United States Chief Executive.

Louisiana GOP Senator David Vitter, a man whom I am honored to say I worked for and helped reelect, has done and is doing all he can to continue to bring this issue to light.

I have assembled a list below of stories and references from around the web documenting Senator Vitter's efforts to protect and defend the United States Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

Stories regarding Sen. Vitter's questioning of Obama's eligibility:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/13/david-vitter-birther-gop_n_644031.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39652.html

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/13/vitters-birther-comments-draw-heat/

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/republican-senator-david-vitter-a-birther/question-1102977/

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/13/obama-and-birthers-sen-david-vitter-says-its-valid-question-f/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/12/politics/main6671974.shtml

Senator Vitter also spoke at a Tea Party rally last October in which the other big-name speaker appearing at the event was none other than Dr. Jerome Corsi, author of the book entitled: Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President.

Corsi's speech at the "Remember in November" Tea Party event in Mandeville, Louisiana was largely centered around Obama's lack of eligibility to be President of the United States. Senator Vitter spoke at the very same rally just minutes before Dr. Corsi delivered the keynote address. Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA) also spoke at the event, but I do not remember his speech as I was too busy working the crowd recruiting volunteers for the Vitter Campaign.

Fat Lester Meets Dr. Jerome Corsi at Tea Party event in Mandeville, LA

Below is a photograph of myself, Sen. Vitter, Peter and Pamela Egan. It was taken at an awards banquet for a local Republican organization. The banquet was held at the Quail Farm in Abita Springs, Louisiana. This photo was taken almost a year before my employment with the 2011 David Vitter for U.S. Senate campaign.

I worked as the Grassroots Coordinator for Southeast Louisiana for Vitter's 2010 reelection bid in which Vitter defeated Democrat Charlie Melancon by a score of 57-38. A field of more than 10 minor candidates split the other 5% of the vote.

A number of so-called experts and analysts had projected the race to be very close and initially considered the GOP-held seat "vulnerable". From my vantage point - working on the ground and interacting with voters every day (all day, seven days a week) - I had a pretty good idea the contest would end in a blowout with my candidate falling on the right end of the lopsided score.

From Left: Fat Lester, Sen. David Vitter, Peter and Pam Egan

I actually took a temporary leave-of-absence from my business (much of which was on autopilot anyway) to work on the campaign. I did this because I truly believe, as evidenced by this post and the stories referenced herein, that America has a much better chance of surviving the assault unleashed by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and of course President Barack Obama on the American Constitution, economy and military/defense infrastructure if David Vitter continues to serve as a voice of reason in the United States Senate. I can only think of two others off the top of my head, and one of them was not a member of the Senate when I decided to dedicate myself to helping to ensure Vitter's reelection. The other two Senators are Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Rand Paul (R-KY), respectively. The House generally speaking has a higher percentage of ideologically-pure conservatives than does the Senate, and conservatives in the House are traditionally less likely to compromise with Democrats for the sake of unity, "bipartisanship" or compromise (which usually involves the left getting most or all of what it wants).

Anyway, as for the second of Dean's two-part second question about why he hadn't yet been made aware of this fact, the reality is that while the URLs listed above come from well-known, "mainstream" news sources, while these entities obviously reported on Sen. Vitter's defense of the Constitution, they most likely buried the stories so deep within their sites that the only way anyone would ever find them is if they were searching Google using queries specific to David Vitter and Obama's eligibility/birth certificate.

More about Dr. Jerry Corsi (from Amazon):

"Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers The Obama Nation and Unfit for Command. Along with serving as WND's senior staff reporter, Corsi is a senior managing director at Gilford Securities."

More about Dr. Corsi's New Book:

"Over the course of more than three years of research, Jerome Corsi assembles the evidence that Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the office of the presidency. As a New York Times bestselling author, Harvard graduate, and investigative journalist, Corsi exposes in detail key issues with Obama's eligibility, including the fact the President has spent millions of dollars in legal fees to avoid providing the American people with something as simple as a long-form birth certificate. The eligibility issue has major ramifications for every American, and through Corsi's in-depth research, a clear, concise, and compelling case is made for a return to Founding Father principles and transparent, constitutional government, starting from the top down."

Anyway, if anyone reading this is interested in learning more about the book and/or buying it, just click the image below.

Jerome Corsi's Book: "Where's the Birth Certificate"

Video on Dr. Jerome Corsi's new book: Where's the Birth Certificate: The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President

Education Reform Not About Hating Teachers

I came across a link to a NY Times story while perusing headlines on Amplify the other day about teachers throwing a pity party over perceived scorn by the general public. The headline for the Amplify story read: "Why do Americans hate teachers?".

Since like most liberal propaganda, this story - regardless of where it goes or how it unfolds - is based entirely upon flawed logic. In this case the fallacy is the good ole false premise. True to form, the premise upon which the story and any arguments made therein are based is faulty, and the reader must accept the false premise as being true in order to proceed in logical fashion.

Americans Do Not Hate Teachers

Growing calls for education reform in America have absolutely nothing to do with the perceived "hate" that an apparently paranoid group of American teachers sees as being directed towards themselves.  To equate demands for major education reform and calls for an overhaul of the education system with hatred of teachers is every bit as ridiculous and absurd as crying "racist" against the Tea Partiers for cheering wildly as Herman Cain announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee.

It's not that Americans hate teachers or anyone else for that matter. An increasing number of Americans object to the systematic ideological brainwashing of the nation's youth by way of a government-run, taxpayer-funded education system.

The public is quite cognizant of the fact that for every subversive there is a legitimately good, caring teacher who has no intention or desire to thrust an ideological agenda upon developing minds. However, the public is also well aware of the fact that the problem is severe and must be dealt with sooner rather than later.

Our nation's schools - at all levels, from elementary school right on through college - have been increasingly underperforming while steadily increasing in cost (both to taxpayers as well as private tuition costs) at a rate far in excess of the rate of inflation.

The fact is that the brainwashing taking place throughout both the primary, secondary and higher education systems is largely responsible for the election of Barack Obama, whose destructive policies and agenda has terrorized the American economy for more than two years now. The consequences of inaction have become too severe, necessitating the need for immediate education reform.

One final thought, for anyone quick to dismiss the charge of organized and systematic brainwashing as unfounded or too conspiratorial in nature to be legit, I leave you with the following:

KGB Used (Past Tense?) U.S. Education System and Media to Brainwash Public

Governor Haley Barbour Tests Presidential Waters at CPAC

Haley Barbour, the Republican Governor of Mississippi, appeared by all accounts to be testing the political waters with GOP voters in preparation for a potential 2012 presidential run when he addressed a youthful and exuberant crowd during CPAC's (Conservative Political Action Conference) 2011 annual gathering.

I was lucky enough to have had the opportunity to meet Governor Barbour back in 2004 at a fundraiser for Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's '04 Congressional campaign, for whom worked as a grassroots intern.

Granted, back then he was just "Bobby" as at that time had never held elected office, and he insisted back then that his staff and interns refer to him only as "Bobby", not "Mr. Jindal", not "Soon-To-Be-Congressman-Elect," just Bobby.  At the time, the current LA Governor was all of 33 years of age.

Anyway, it was an honor and privilege to meet the newly-elected Governor of Mississippi back in 2004 while working for the current Governor of neighboring Louisiana.

I can honestly say that I've met no less than three of the top seven or eight names mentioned in terms of possibilities for the 2012 GOP Presidential ticket, although one of those would most likely only appear on any prospective ticket as the VP nominee.  For anyone who may be tempted to question by credibility when I make bold statements about my involvement and association with the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

Read more about Governor Barbour's CPAC speech:  http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/02/12/barbour-tells-cpac-its-all-about-white-house-0