Greatest Hits: They Said if I Voted for Romney, They’d Come After my 401(k), and They Were Right!

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

They Said if I Voted for Romney, They’d Come After my 401(k), and They Were Right!:   Don’t be surprised when they come for your savings…

That’s right kids, they government is eyeing your 401(k), IRA, or 403(b) with great envy.  And, as for the title, since Stacey is talking blog shtick, I thought I’d borrow from his well, which is deep with all sorts of goodness.  

But, back to the seriousness.  There has been rumblings about the government taking over all private retirement accounts for some time.  Apparently, the democrats just can’t let a big pool of money sit there in private hands-it must be controlled, and redistributed, bythe kind hands of government.  Bob Belvedere at  TCOTS has more…

The Editors at Investor’s Business Daily published an excellent editorial yesterday [tip of the fedora to Memeorandum] on the coming attempt by the national government to seize control of retirement accounts, like the 401(k).

A highlight:

President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, for instance, proposed lowering the cap on the amount workers could place in their 401(k)s without incurring taxes.

And nearly three years ago, Newt Gingrich and Peter Ferrara wrote on these pages about the Treasury and Labor departments “asking for public comment on ‘the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams.’”

“In plain English,” said Gingrich and Ferrara, “the idea is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years.”

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

More than 60 million American workers have a 401(k) or similar — 403(b) or 457(b) — plan. But taxing these accounts or lowering the amount that can be contributed to them tax-free would do little to close the deficit and cut the debt.

Do take the time to click here and read it all [and weep].

Hmmm, let’s take a look at the following a bit more closely…

“the idea is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years.”

That sounds rather familiar, doesn’t it?  I mean, how does money get taken from me in exchange for payments when I’m retired?  Oh, that’s it, Social Security.  Well, I never expect to see a dime from that government ponzi scheme, which is why I have a 401(k).  However, if they government does to my 401(k) what they are doing to Social Security, should ever expect a single dime of that either?

I’m thinking retirement is going to be very cold and hungry.  Then again, IPAB would probably kill me off buy that time anyway.

Isn’t it great to live in the “fundamentally transformed USSA?”

We’ll be showing more and more posts about this today, as it is a current issue. 

Share

Obama: Promises, Promises …

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Stop Me

“Obama is a historic disaster of the first magnitude and, if not restrained, he will see to the irrevocable decline of the country which foolishly elected him, leaving the world on the brink of a conflict — or in the midst of one — whose repercussions cannot be underestimated.” – David Solway

__________

  • “Number of States won by: Obama: 19 Romney: 29
  • Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 Romney: 2,427,000
  • Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million Romney: 143 million
  • Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 Romney: 2.1

In aggregate, the map of the territory Romney won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…” – Professor Joseph Olsen (via Shoebat)

__________

Obama’s academic records are perpetually unavailable for a reason — and that reason is most likely that they reveal he received financial preferences, scholarships and/or loans, as a foreign student. — Roger Simon

__________

“It’s official — the government of the United States of Obama consists of boobs and bores and is led by a narcissist.” – Michael Goodwin

__________

Recently, a friend sent me a poll that indicated that when it came to Healthcare, Obama’s approval rating was 37%; the Economy (31%); Immigration (32%); Terrorism (51%); Foreign Policy (34%); and Overall Job Approval (41%). He concluded by saying that added up to six “F’s” and wondered how the Left would spin those catastrophic numbers.

“No problem,” I replied. “They will merely say that when it comes to those all-important issues, 226% of the people are behind Obama.” Burt Prelutsky

__________

Obama.  He’s destroyed our healthcare, gutted our military, mothballed our space program, opened our borders, sabotaged our foreign policy, bled our economy into anemia, and shredded our Constitution.  Who says he hasn’t kept his promises?

Eyes Left

Related stories:

Original Post: Promises, Promises …

Share

More Signs That Obama is Jimmy Carter 2.0

Share

Those of us old enough might remember the following speech from Jimmy Carter…

Well, it appears that Obama is becoming the Jimmy Carter 2.0, and Newsmax can explain why.

Americans’ optimism about their country is at its lowest since when Jimmy Carter was president in 1979, a new Gallup poll has found.

The survey of 1,011 adults conducted Jan. 7-10 found that only 39 percent — or fewer than four in 10 Americans — rated the country positively on a 1-to-10 scale, Gallup reports. While the number is about the same as in 2010, it is at its lowest since 1979.

However, they were more optimistic on where the nation will be in five years — with 48 percent giving a positive response — but that is also as low as in 1979.

However, there are two very sad differences between now and then.

1.  Million of brainwashed or dependent people voted for more of the same, if not worse.

2.  Mitt Romney was no Reagan.  NOT EVEN CLOSE.  There was no real Conservative message-no real alternative.

So, while Obama is actually worse that a Jimmy Carter 2.0, the slippery slope of indoctrination, dependency, and general failure is allowing Obama  to do what Carter could not-destroy our economy.

Share

They Said if I Voted for Romney, They’d Come After my 401(k), and They Were Right!

Share

That’s right kids, they government is eyeing your 401(k), IRA, or 403(b) with great envy.  And, as for the title, since Stacey is talking blog shtick, I thought I’d borrow from his well, which is deep with all sorts of goodness.  

But, back to the seriousness.  There has been rumblings about the government taking over all private retirement accounts for some time.  Apparently, the democrats just can’t let a big pool of money sit there in private hands-it must be controlled, and redistributed, bythe kind hands of government.  Bob Belvedere at  TCOTS has more…

The Editors at Investor’s Business Daily published an excellent editorial yesterday [tip of the fedora to Memeorandum] on the coming attempt by the national government to seize control of retirement accounts, like the 401(k).

A highlight:

President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, for instance, proposed lowering the cap on the amount workers could place in their 401(k)s without incurring taxes.

And nearly three years ago, Newt Gingrich and Peter Ferrara wrote on these pages about the Treasury and Labor departments “asking for public comment on ‘the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams.’”

“In plain English,” said Gingrich and Ferrara, “the idea is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years.”

More than 60 million American workers have a 401(k) or similar — 403(b) or 457(b) — plan. But taxing these accounts or lowering the amount that can be contributed to them tax-free would do little to close the deficit and cut the debt.

Do take the time to click here and read it all [and weep].

Hmmm, let’s take a look at the following a bit more closely…

“the idea is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years.”

That sounds rather familiar, doesn’t it?  I mean, how does money get taken from me in exchange for payments when I’m retired?  Oh, that’s it, Social Security.  Well, I never expect to see a dime from that government ponzi scheme, which is why I have a 401(k).  However, if they government does to my 401(k) what they are doing to Social Security, should ever expect a single dime of that either?

I’m thinking retirement is going to be very cold and hungry.  Then again, IPAB would probably kill me off buy that time anyway.

Isn’t it great to live in the “fundamentally transformed USSA?”

Share

Election 2012: What Went Wrong?

Share

So President Barack Obama won Election 2012. What went wrong? Some people will go small and point towards factors such as the Chris Christie and Colin Powell’s backstabbing, a chance hurricane, a weak third debate from Romney, Romney’s unforced Jeep mistake, or the power of the ground game. But I think the what went wrong is something much bigger than this.

In my post Has America Passed the Point of No Return (ie, 50.1%+ Dependency on Government)? I quotes an article by John Hinderaker over at Powerline blog calledWhy Is This Election Close?:

…On paper, given Obama’s record, this election should be a cakewalk for the Republicans. Why isn’t it? I am afraid the answer may be that the country is closer to the point of no return than most of us believed. With over 100 million Americans receiving federal welfare benefits, millions more going on Social Security disability, and many millions on top of that living on entitlement programs–not to mention enormous numbers of public employees–we may have gotten to the point where the government economy is more important, in the short term, than the real economy. My father, the least cynical of men, used to quote a political philosopher to the effect that democracy will work until people figure out they can vote themselves money. I fear that time may have come….

…I am afraid the problem in this year’s race is economic self-interest: we are perilously close to the point where 50% of our population cares more about the money it gets (or expects to get) from government than about the well-being of the nation as a whole. Throw in a few confused students, pro-abortion fanatics, etc., and you have a Democratic majority…

I sensed that this was the case last week.

In my ‘endorsement of Romney post’, I tried to address this issue because I recognized that this might be the case- but notice that at no point did I ever realistically predict on this blog that President Romney would win the election because I have had too many conversations over the past week with people who voted for Obama because they perceived that Obama transferred wealth to them that they did not earn.

Teachers, auto workers, those who refinanced home loans, green companies, union workers, farmers, road workers, government workers, those on social security, those on food stamps, those on unemployment, those on government assistance- these people now make up over 50% of the population and realize that they only get by by using the power of the state to take wealth from those who produce and earn it and transfer it to them. The takers now outnumber the givers, and slowly but surely will ever more thoroughly plunder them.

The problem with passing this point is that there is no turning back- the process actually accelerates, as those who produce wealth realize that it is much easier to take than it is to work hard and produce, and as those producers of wealth drop out of the system it becomes necessary to plunder those who remain even more.

The rich- those millionaires who President Obama has been demanding more from and those businesses who remain productive and successful- are going to be either faced with one of two options- pay an ever increasing share of the wealth that the ever increasing share of takers demands, or join the ruling elite and use the power of the state to protect themselves from the predatory state and as a thank you reward the ruling powers with greater political contributions and support.

So where does this take us? Here is my prediction, from my earlier post Three Possible Futures for America:

…(Second Scenario): America is at a crossroads and that it if President Obama and his Democratic allies (also including any Republican that supports government attack on life, liberty, and protection of property) remain in power it is likely that the damage that they will do- together with the damage they have already done- will be too great to recover from and never again will children live the same prosperous, happy, and secure lives that their parents did before them. An Obama win here will be the end of America- another four years of him remaining in power will solidify the damage already done and he will do further damage- he will ignore Congress and implement his policies of steering wealth and power to his friends, regardless of the wishes of the American people…

The America that we all know and love and grew up with is gone. You now have two options. Option one- work the same amount and steadily become more poor, less free, and have your life be less secure. Or mole your way into the political elite, bow and scrape to your political masters, buy off politicians and corrupt the system as never before to protect yourself, and realize that America is on the path towards being a despotic nation just like every other nation in the world throughout the history of the world.

Personally, this means that at some point, I will need to shut down this blog and go into hiding- a fate that I have been barely avoiding for the past year as my enemies sniff ever closer and grow ever bolder. It’s time to get real small and avoid the coming storm. Or perhaps I will fight, like my patriot forefathers have done before me, putting my family and fortunes at risk of retribution in the vain hope of fighting a futile rearguard action in the name of liberty and freedom. I guess you’ll see which it is over the next several months.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Share

Voting Machines in Kansas and Ohio Change Romney Votes to Obama Votes

Share

Early voting seems to have a purpose after all-to discover that voting machines are changing Romney votes into Obama votes.  As if by magic, of course.  the Lonely Conservative has more…

Has anyone heard of any instances of voting machines erring on the side of Mitt Romney? I haven’t. Everything I’ve heard is about voting machines changing votes for Romney into votes for Obama. It’s still going on.

According to the Marion Star, early voter Joan Stevens tried to cast her ballot for Mitt Romney, but the machine kept defaulting to Barack Obama.

“Upon selecting ‘Mitt Romney’ on the electronic touch screen, Barack Obama’s name lit up,” the Star reported, adding that it took Stevens three attempts before the correct vote would register.

“You want to vote for who you want to vote for, and when you can’t it’s irritating,” she said.

The Blaze reported Wednesday that a voter in Topeka, Kansas, also had problems casting her ballot for Mitt Romney.

A woman identified only as Nancy reportedly told The Blaze that “while her husband was casting a vote for Romney, the touchscreen highlighted Obama.”

“He played around with the field a little and realized that in order to vote for Romney, his finger had to be exactly on the mark,” she said in an email.

“She said ‘the invisible Obama field came down about 1/4 [of an inch]‘ into what should technically have been the Romney area. In a phone interview with TheBlaze, she explained further that her husband said he felt the area on the touchscreen that could be pushed to vote for Obama was larger than that for Romney,” Liz Klimas wrote. (Read More)

Here’s one hint for election day.  Make sure that before you confirm your choices, make sure that you are voting for the actual candidate of your choice. And, I think it bears repeating that no machine has been said to have turned Obama Votes into Romney votes.

Just sayin…

Share

More Reasons for the Obama Campaign to Panic? Collapse and Impending Doom on Election Day?

Share

Yesterday, we discussed that the Obama Campaign’s allocation of funds and resources indicated that they are panicking, using scarce resources in places that a democrat incumbent should never have to defend this late in the game.  Today, however, even more indications of collapse and impending doom came to light.

Reason for Panic 1:  Dwindling Crowds at Obama Events…

In a related presidential campaign rally in Commerce City, Colorado, former President Bill Clinton was the designated cheerleader to speak to the gathered faithful. However, the rally, held at a Commerce City High School, wasn’t “optimal,” to use a phrase from President Obama. The school extended the gymnasium’s partition across the half-court line, so as to give the rally a more intimate setting.

This Obama rally was in start contrast to the Romney/Ryan rally held last week at Red Rocks which was filled to overflowing capacity and had to turn away thousands who attempted to attend the rally.

Can you spell e.t.h.u.s.i.a.s.m?  Apparently, team Romney has a ton, and team Obama…not so much.

Reason for Panic 2:  Romney Leading in Early Voting…

According to the Colorado Secretary of State’s reporting of early voting, Republican’s continue to lead the way in returning their early voting ballots. With total votes of 1,150,698, reported so far the breakdown is as follows;

Republican – 439,269 (38.2%)

Democrat – 404,870 (35.2%)

Undecided – 295,122 (25.6%)

If that keeps up, maybe the Democrats will shy away from early voting.  Though, they probably think that the truckloads full of “absentee ballots” that they have on hand will counter this.

Reason to Panic 3:  Obama Having a Hard Time Leading in Cooked Polls

But with one week to go the last gasp effort to rally the MSNBC troops took place today on Morning Joe as they touted the Quinnipiac/CBS?NYT polls Saying Obama is up 5 in Ohio with a week to go.

What really got me was their claim that the Quinnipiac poll was the “most accurate” and again playing the “poll denier” card. I’ve personally found their numbers the least believable and while they were talking about the fights in other states as an alternative to Ohio for Romney I looked up the internals of this Ohio/VA/Florida poll and found this:

After talking about how reliable Quinnipiac is, for 15 minutes and while I was tweeting out the D+8 samples in all of these states D+7 in Florida, they suddenly pivoted as Mark Halperin brought up the D+8 sample and people asked how can this be the case if Mitt is up by huge margins among independents in this poll?

Um, if you have a hard time leading in a poll that is over-sampled  to your side, how do you have confidence that you’re going to win the election?  It’s not looking good.

Reason to Panic 4:  Freefall in Michigan?

And, Obama is in a free-fall collapse in Michigan.
Business Insider reported:

President Barack Obama has seen a once-steady lead in Michigan decline to just 2 points in a recent poll, and Michigan has been thrown into “toss-up” status in the election’s final week.

The poll, from The Detroit News, finds Obama leading Republican rival Mitt Romney, 47.7 percent to 45 percent. That’s the second poll in a week that has shown an increasingly tight race in the state, including a Foster McCollum White Baydoun poll that showed the race virtually tied. And it comes as a pro-Romney super PAC, American Crossroads, includes Michigan in its $50 million, final-week ad buy.

Intriguingly, when comparing the Michigan poll to a new poll of Ohio released today, it shows that the race in Michigan is actually closer.

Only leading by 2.7 points?  With most polls, that will be within the margin of error.  And, if Democrats are over-sampled, as they are in most polls, it can spell doom for Obama.

Reason  to Panic 5:  Has Obama Lost Independents?  

Take a look at this…

The evidence is piling up.  The Obama Campaign has many reasons to panic.  The problem is that as they panic, their lies will become more outlandish, and their ability to justify illegal acts to win will only be amplified.  It could get very interesting.

Share

Voting Machines in North Carolina Register Romney Votes for Obama

Share

What happens when you go to vote for Romney, but your vote get’s registered for Obama?  Well, it has happened in North Carolina, and Lonely Conservative has the background…

In Guilford County, NC some voters have complained that when they chose Mitt Romney for president on electronic voting machines the votes came up for President Obama. One woman tried three times and it kept happening. Election officials say it was just a glitch that’s been corrected, but if you vote on this sort of machine I’d be sure to double check that your vote is counted properly.

The presidential election is just around the corner and voting issues have already become a problem in Guilford County.

On Monday, several voters complained that their electronic ballot machine cast the wrong vote.  All the complaints were made by people who voted at the Bur-Mil Park polling location.

One of the voters, Sher Coromalis, says she cast her ballot for Governor Mitt Romney, but every time she entered her vote the machine defaulted to President Obama.

“I was so upset that this could happen,” said Coromalis.

Guilford County Board of Elections Director George Gilbert says the problem arises every election. It can be resolved after the machine is re-calibrated by poll workers.

“It’s not a conspiracy it’s just a machine that needs to be corrected,” Gilbert said.

After the third try, Coromalis says she was able to get her vote counted for Gov. Romney but was still annoyed. (Read More)

And, as the Lonely Conservative does point out, there are no reports of Obama votes being changed to Romney votes.   I’ll keep watching this story for developments.

Share

Passive Romney Misses Chance to Seize Victory in Third Debate? My Notes and Observations

Share

Approaching this third and final Presidential Debate in 2012, I am led to believe that the challenger Mitt Romney needs to score a victory in this debate and appear to voters as more competent and Presidential and a better Commander-in-Chief than President Obama. The media is in the bag on this one and will score a tie or even an Obama loss as an ‘Obama win’, and President Obama has the advantage of being able to tout over and over that ‘he killed bin Laden’, so Romney faces some formidable challenges. The President has access to information and can use hypothetical scenario’s, no matter how implausible, to attack the Governor, while the Governor an rely on actual events and the administration’s responses to these events to portray Obama as unfit for command. We’re probably in store for another battle of reality vs rhetoric, results vs slander/lies, and an epic matchup of the real world vs bizarro world. This is it- Romney needs a victory before this large audience to sway Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada, and other swing states- let’s see if he is able to do this and highlight the foreign policy failures of our hapless and inept President- while also battling a likely heavily leftist moderator.

Here are my thoughts and notes and observations on the debate:

  • Governor Romney is forced to start by defending his statements about Obama’s policy. The start is rather rough- he started out shaky and fell back to material that sounded as if came from a speech. He needed to come out charging and instead it appears that he is playing it safe and going with a simple list of the failures of Obama’s policies. He just said we’re going to continue to do what Obama has done- “we just can’t kill our way out of this situation”- but that isn’t going to sell very well. Obama gets to say ‘I’m glad you agree that I’ve done a great job of killing the bad guys’- Romney should not have soft-served this one to Obama.
  • President Obama does not answer the question about Libya and whether or not his policies there a success there. He summarizes his actions as making a phone call to make sure everything was being done, issued a memo to conduct an investigation, and told someone to put together a speech about how he is going to catch the bad guys- and then went to bed, satisfied that he had done all the ‘work’ that goes into being a President. A lot of rhetoric followed this.
  • Someone told Romney to be wonkish and a policy analyst on this debate and appear to be ‘more Presidential’- but he is not doing so by really going after Obama. Oh, he is talking about a lack of progress in the Middle East- but not pinning it on Obama. The media isn’t going to do this- Romney is going to have to do this.
  • Obama on the other hand has come out hard-charging and attacking Romney, quoting him and putting him on the defensive, listing all of his positions- not ‘bad results’ but blaming Romney directly- this is sounding much better and is more effective. As a side note, the ‘social policies’ of the 1950’s led to important advances for minorities with Brown vs Board of Education and a Voting Rights Act and the ‘economic policies’ of the 1920’s led to a booming economy before it collapsed under FDR. Obama is a replay of the social policies under LBJ and a replay of the economic policies under FDR- neither of which I would consider a success.
  • Romney is letting Obama frame him- putting words in his mouth and then walking away, assuming that this frame will stick. Romney needs to do a better job rejecting this frame while also framing Obama. Obama wins this first exchange by quite a bit, and perhaps the election, letting him rip off lines like “one thing I have learned as commander-in-chief” without Romney replying back anything worthwhile. The Libya topic comes and goes without Romney landing a blow- what a blown opportunity- he was not properly prepared on this and assumes that the American people wanted a policy discussion instead of a political debate show. Obama gets in the last word on this exchange.
  • Question to Obama- talk about your successes and why your policies have been great towards Syria. A lot of rhetoric here, nothing of note.
  • Romney jumps into a discussion on the importance of Syria- no one cares about this. This was an opportunity to be critical of Obama’s policies, not to have a discussion on the sort of right policies to enact here. Romney is playing defense, and I think he needed to play offense instead. General vague phrases like ‘we need better policies’ should have been stated as ‘President Obama has pushed for bad policies here such as’ blah blah. Less about what we should be doing, and more about what President Obama is not doing. Another missed opportunity for Romney- and Obama was able to jump back onto Libya and hammer Romney on this issue- Romney didn’t do this and that was another miss. Obama won this exchange too and again comes off looking more Presidential. Obama gets in the last word, although the moderator tries to help out Romney by asking him about his policies- sadly, no one cares about our policies in Syria, we care about why your policies are better than Obama’s, and that was not established except as a glancing and side blow at the end. Oh, Obama gets the last word after all on this exchange.
  • Question to Obama- Do you have any regrets about pushing Mubarack out in Egypt? Obama says no, linking his actions to JFK and historical movements for democracy, and then even though it has turned out he gets to say a bunch of stuff about how he wants the region to improve (as if his words and thoughts can become reality without hard work and good policies). Romney needs to come back with “You helped push one of our historical allies out of power and led to radical Muslim groups taking more control of Egypt and destabilized the region”.
  • Romney instead comes back with “I agree with the President” and suggests that he would have also relied on rhetoric about freedom and such. Another missed change. No criticism on Obama in his answer, instead a rough transition about what his larger vision is on a range of issues. He’s talking about the economy now, debt, Iran, and foreign policy- what a mess. I am so disappointed that by his performance tonight- I thought he won the first debates, but this one is a mess for Romney so far- and we’re 30 minutes into it. Here was a chance to talk about the rape of our reporters, the rise of fundamentalists, the attacks on Coptic Churches, etc- and instead we got a lot of rhetoric. Obama gives us this kind of crap and does it better- Romney is coming off as tired and worn and scattered.
  • Question- What is our role in the world? Romney gives a confusing and sprawling answer- he is so unfocused, jumping from subject to subject. Obama is looking serious and locked in, Romney is sounding edgy and not calm. No attacks on Obama, letting him not play any defense at all. Obama gets to simply give a stock speech and engage in attacks on Romney.
  • Romney gets a little bit more excited and with it on talking about the economy- I am surprised at the difference in his tone of voice and passion with this topic switch- he nails his facts and lays down some good attacks. But Obama is clever and switched the topic over to education policy- don’t take the bait on this one, Governor- stick to going back to the economy and don’t get sucked into this argument about ‘how government can support teachers’. Obama spews off usual stuff about ‘government support for education’, even though the federal government plays such a tiny role in providing support for education. Romney took the bait though and instead talked about education successes- but didn’t link this back to the economy and didn’t do anything to hammer Obama. Obama interrupted the Governor several times during this exchange.
  • Question- How will we pay for an increased military? Romney talks about what he would cut- he should just do the usual Obama trick and say ‘I’m going to cut out fraud and waste and magically save billions of dollars’. Romney about a minute into his answer and Obama cuts him off over and over again- and Romney lets him. Obama gets to frame Romney’s policies again and just throw around numbers and information, coming off in control of the situation. I can’t believe that Romney discussed this topic without mentioning sequestration! In discussing Romney’s budget, I think that Obama did his usual accounting move and added trillions together multiple times- Obama’s ‘5 trillion short’ number included already military increases and balancing the budget, yet here Obama added those to the 5 trillion number. Romney never answered the original question about how to pay for the increased military- the libertarians and Ron Paul people aren’t going to like this exchange. I score this exchange another win for Obama. Obama gets in the last word on this exchange, and gets to make a mockery of Romney’s plans by arguing them to absurdity, suggesting that having a smaller navy is the same thing as having less horse cavalry or less bayonets, pretending that having less destroyers and aircraft carriers and cruisers is the same thing as having less of obsolete technology. Romney gets no chance to rebut these attacks. At this point, I think that Obama has spoken a lot more than Romney has and seems to be dominating the time of possession.
  • Obama- “As long as I’m President, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon”, relying on sanctions and economic embargo’s. Obama is looking rather strong here, saying that he will not take any options off the table, while also saying that he is less militant than Romney. Romney has an option- either being stronger and more militant or appealing to moderates and independents by being smarter and less militant. Romney instead falls into policy discussions and ways to manage the situation. A bunch of policy options is no match for Obama pounding on the fact that he’s sent young men into battle, killed bin Laden, and is commander-in-chief right now. Romney’s not President yet, and won’t be unless he reverses the trend of this debate, so all of that is well and good but he needed to go after Obama.
  • President Obama talks about Iran and how we should deal with Iran, attempting to frame Romney as some sort of fool. Romney has an opening though- Obama’s failure to support the Iranian people during the Green Revolution. Obama said that he would ‘stand by the Iranian’ people- but here was a clear and visible time he did not. Romney should charge through here and hammer Obama on this. Romney instead talks about Iran’s views on our current administration- a great chance for him to bring up the fact that the Iran government has endorsed Obama and supports his re-election. In his answer there was a passing reference to both the Green Revolution and Iran’s support of Obama, but his overall argument- that Obama was weak in the beginning- was not a very strong argument- he needed to argue that Obama is weak NOW. Obama’s reply is that Romney is a liar and says his favorite line in every debate that “every fact-checker has looked into that claim and said that it’s simply not true” and gets to defend his actions in the Green Revolution. Romney gets into a discussion about the apology tour, but weakly lands blows on this. Obama replies with a bunch of rhetoric and deep-sounding words, avoiding the fact that there were real policy implications for his apology tour, and frames the debate once again. Obama gets the last word in on this exchange.
  • Romney demonstrates that he understands the role of a CEO for real- that there wouldn’t be some sort of call out of the blue saying that Israeli bombers are in the air about to bomb Iran. Obama would have had some sort of smart sounding answer for that, belaying the fact that it would have been out of the blue for him because he has not forged any relationship with any major leaders around the world and because he has not done the hard work- going to meetings, reading memo’s, etc- needed. Obama replies by framing Romney as some sort of extremist, flip-flopping, and lying fool, connecting various speeches without any context and just cherry-picking lines and stringing them together nicely. I’m sorry- it’s powerful stuff when Obama rolls off these sort of insincere, calculating, ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical attacks. He is an audacious fellow, our President, and with no principals or soul he has the ability to lay blows on this like Romney without worry about the fact that pretty much everything that he said was not true. Obama gets the last word in this exchange, Romney does not get a chance to reply to any of these charges, letting the lie stand. LETTING THE LIE STAND. Another win for Obama. This moderator is much better than the other ones in helping out Obama, throwing him softball questions and giving him the last word on every exchange, which are much more subtle but no less powerful means of injecting bias into a debate.
  • Question is about Afghanistan. Romney talked, nothing notable in there, I’ve already forgotten what he said. Obama gets to roll off usual nice-sounding lines. This is the perfect debate for him- a lot of pretty words and stories without having to defend his results and with the moderator helping to end the conversation after Obama drops a good line or series of lies. Obama got the last word in on this exchange.
  • Romney asked a question about Pakistan, answered the question with a lot of solid policies and well-thought out ideas. No attacks on Obama though and Obama is going to get the last word and the ability to say ‘Romney flipped on this’ or that ‘Romney now likes my policies.’ I can only hope that the American people were looking to this debate for policies and looking Presidential and will find Obama to be boorish and rude. Obama is comfortable, in his zone, and not at all flustered by Romney, who isn’t even looking at Obama any more. It’s almost as if Romney doesn’t know why he won the first debate and scored a win in the second- he’s talking to the moderator and just saying stuff- that isn’t how to defeat a skilled sophist like Obama. Obama gets in the last word on this exchange.
  • China- Obama is positioning himself as some sort of right-wing protectionist on Chinese trade. Obama pretends that he has some sort of positive leverage on China, ignoring the fact that we are borrowing money from them, cutting out military, and are abandoning our commitments around the world. That’s the usual ignore reality stuff that Romney needed needed to go after, instead Romney talks about these issues as if they are not Obama’s fault, as if they are happening in some sort of a vacuum- he is looking past Obama.
  • Moderator follows up on a Romney point by pointing out the other side- yet hasn’t done that the whole debate for any of Obama’s points- he never offered an alternative viewpoint or an argument against Obama’s points. I guess this is better than an incorrect fact-check, but still, it would be nice to have a fair moderator one of these debates. Obama gets the last word in on this issue, getting to talk about how he (using taxpayer money and ignoring all the failures that he dumps on taxpayers) was able to build businesses here (as if this is the same thing as a private businessman doing it!). No one is really going to care about currency manipulation and these complicated ideas- I wonder if Obama might be right in betting that Americans are uneducated and ignorant and can be easily fooled by words and shiny objects.
  • Regarding Romney’s stance on bankruptcy, Obama says that Romney did not want the auto companies to get any government help- let’s go to the record on this one- in Romney’s editorial he says “The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing”- although Obama is correct and Romney does not say ‘bailouts without conditions for private companies’, Romney is correct that he felt that the federal government should provide guarantees, I assume loan guarantees, to the auto companies that emerge form bankruptcy restructured and stronger. That might have been a better approach than Obama’s, which was give a blank check to some companies and not others, play politics with those companies, and seize control of GM for the unions and the government. One approach relies on capitalism and free markets, and the other in a perverted economic system that could be described as some sort of third way alliance of big labor-big government- and big business. Obama got the last word on this subject.
  • Closing arguments- a lot of rhetoric from Obama, nice sounding phrases, keep trying, Romney’s bad, etc etc. Romney’s closing argument was less passion filled and more confident sounding than his earlier ones- he has got to get the fear back into him, the fear that he might lose, and that might have motivated him more- he sounds like he is targeting moderates and independents with this debate.

This debate was probably not for him- if it was, I would score it as a solid win for Obama. He was able to get the last word in on every subject, able to blast away with little reply from Romney, and Romney had a very laid back and measured strategy. The after-debate commentary is that Romney was trying to simply ‘hug’ Obama, as a boxer who has a lead in points does towards the end of a boxing match.

I don’t think Romney did what he needed to do in this debate to win the election- I think he got some bad advice on this one. Obama was aggressive, critical, petty, and had a lot of good lines- will this win moderate and independent voters or scare or turn them off?

CNN is talking about how Obama anticipated Romney’s move to the center and was ready for it, FOX is talking about how Romney might have surprised Obama by his passive and moderate approach in this debate. I can’t watch CNN any more- they are just bashing Romney and continuing Obama’s attacks on him instead of providing real analysis. FOX is back to looking at what the candidates said and their attitude in the debate, having people chime in with their views on who won, doing some fact-checking, and looking into focus groups. Chris Wallace echoed my thoughts- he said that anyone who just tuned in today would have thought that Romney was sitting on a big lead instead of playing the challenger role. Flipped back to CNN and watched them fact-check some of the debate- many of Obama’s claims against Romney are true but missing important and vital context that undermines that truth, many of Romney’s claims against Obama were mostly true both in context and principle.

Obama 42 minutes, Romney 41 minutes. Shocking- all four debates, advantage Democrat in time, and could have been higher if Romney hadn’t talked over Obama and the moderator several times. All four moderators biased in favor of the Democrats to some degree, some more so than others.

Please feel free to quote and reference my notes and observations in your own posts on this debate. Tinyurl link: http://tinyurl.com/9y2w7oa

UPDATE: CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER may have made me feel a little bit better about Romney’s debate performance. Here is what he wrote:

…I think it’s unequivocal, Romney won. And he didn’t just win tactically, but strategically. Strategically, all he needed to do is basically draw. He needed to continue the momentum he’s had since the first debate, and this will continue it. Tactically, he simply had to get up there and show that he’s a competent man, somebody who you could trust as commander in chief, a who knows every area of the globe and he gave interesting extra details, like the Haqqani network, which gave the impression he knows what he’s talking about. But there is a third level here, and that is what actually happened in the debate. 

We can argue about the small points and the debating points. Romney went large, Obama went very, very small, shockingly small. Romney made a strategic decision not go after the president on Libya, or Syria, or other areas where Obama could accuse him of being a Bush-like war monger. Now I would have gone after Obama on Libya like a baseball bat, but that’s why Romney has won elections and I’ve never had to even contested them. He decided to stay away from the and I think that might have actually worked for him….

Last election a candidate who I liked not do every little thing needed to win and he ended up losing by the smallest of margins, so I really am trusting that Romney knows what he was doing in this debate.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Share

Apparently, the Obama Campaign is Accepting Foreign Donations

Share

In a story that DIDN’T break, the Obama Campaign was caught accepting foreign donations.  The NY Post has more…

The Obama re-election campaign has accepted at least one foreign donation in violation of the law — and does nothing to check on the provenance of millions of dollars in other contributions, a watchdog group alleges.

Chris Walker, a British citizen who lives outside London, told The Post he was able to make two $5 donations to President Obama’s campaign this month through its Web site while a similar attempt to give Mitt Romney cash was rejected. It is illegal to knowingly solicit or accept money from foreign citizens.

Walker said he used his actual street address in England but entered Arkansas as his state with the Schenectady, NY, ZIP code of 12345.

“When I did Romney’s, the payment got rejected on the grounds that the address on the card did not match the address that I entered,” he said. “Romney’s Web site wanted the code from the back of card. Barack Obama’s didn’t.”

In case you missed it, I did note that this story DIDN’T break.  And, if you recall, we covered this story a week or two ago, when it was noted that verification codes were not taken by the Obama Campaign, and the the President himself cynically decried foreign donations during the 2010 STFU speech.

Apparently, the MSM is going to take a pass on this, but I would imagine it would lead every broadcast if the Romney camp had done he same.

Share

And Then There Was One …Debate That Is. What Will Obama’s Strategy Be?

Share

The Romney campaign team are rightfully feeling good about their chances of winning now that the first two presidential debate and the VP debate are behind them.  The polls are very favorable.

So, going into next Monday’s debate on foreign affairs, Romney would appear to be in the driver’s seat. All indications are that only a very serious misstep could stop Romney from a  victory on November 6, only three weeks away. Being a foreign affairs debate, and considering the fiasco of the events leading up to the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya (inadequate security) and the Obama administrations bumbling explanations of what really happened (spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video), it would seem that Romney will have no problem making the President look inept and possibly involved in a cover up for purely political reasons.

In the opinion of this humble observer, it would be a big mistake for the Romney team to get overly confident, I would be a mistake for them to underestimate just how low Barack Obama will stoop to win reelection. In the debate the other night, when Obama was asked by a member of he town hall audience, Kerry Ladka, who turned down  the request for additional security in Benhazi, Obama never answered the question. Instead Obama got on his high horse and told the world that he is president and Commander-in-Chief and everybody works for him and he was offended that Governor Romney was trying to politicize a national security matter. He said that, as soon as the word came that there was an attack on the Benghazi consulate, he immediately was on the phone to hiss national security advisors giving orders to do this, that, and the other thing and the very next morning in the Rose Garden he spoke to the American people about the “terrorist attack”. Of course, Mitt Romney called him on the lie that he (Obama) had refered to the attack as a “terrorist attack” and not as a spontaneous protest over some video. As we are all aware, the moderator, Candy Crowley, came to Obama’s rescue. But, my point is this. President Obama never answered Mr. Ladka’s question. President Obama was not prepared to answer Mr. Ladka’s question.

According to this Washington Post article, President Obama spent a few minutes after the debate with Mr. Ladka. Mr. Ladka reports that Obama gave some further explanation.

… However, he spent about two weeks holding off on using the full “terrorist” designation. The rationale for the delay, Obama explained to Ladka, was to make sure that the “intelligence he was acting on was real intelligence and not disinformation,” recalls Ladka.

[…]

As to Ladka’s question about who turned down the Benghazi security requests and why, Obama reportedly told him that “releasing the individual names of anyone in the State Department would really put them at risk,” Ladka says.

Folks, you can  bet that come next Monday’s debate, President Obama will be prepared and he will have invented a plausible explanation on why he delayed so long on calling the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack and instead put the blame on the spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam video. It might go something like this.

Obama: Governor Romney has demonstrated he is not fit to be President. governor Romney intentionally tried to politicize this tragic death of our Ambassador to Libya and three of his staff and the national security issues that were in play by criticizing  what he clearly does not understand, When it comes to national security, I as President and Commander-in-Chief can not always divulge everything we know. Of course I knew this was a terrorist attack within in minutes of the attack beginning. We had live feed from the security cameras at the Benghazi Consulate and our intelligence people were working to identify some of the people involved in the attack. I, as Commander-in-Chief, gave the order that we should not go public with what we knew. It  was important that the terrorists did know what we knew and that is why I gave the order to go the spontaneous attack do the video. Now, unfortunately we had too many leaks on what really happened and I gad to then go public with what we knew. But, you can bet that I am going to get to the bottom of those leaks. My point is this, Governor Romney understands nothing of national security and he was reckless in trying to politicize this tragic event.

Of course, all the above is conjecture on my part. But, I do believe that Obama will come to the next debate with a plan to defuse the Benghazi issue to the extent that he can. We need to keep in mind that in this 90 minute debate the Benghazi issue will not get more than ten minutes before the moderator moves the debaters on to a different subject.

On the issue of Syria, Mitt Romney must, in my opinion, be very careful. Every time I’ve heard Romney on the issue of Syria, he has been very assertive in accusing President Obama of not doing enough to help the people of Syria who have been murdered by tens of thousands by Syrian president Assad. I would caution Mr. Romney to be very careful  on the subject of Syria. He needs to understand that America has no horse in that race. All parties to the Syrian conflict are anti-American. I believe that Obama is going to try to set a trap for Mitt Romney. Obama would like nothing better than to paint Romney as a warmonger. I can just see Obama looking into the camera and pointing his finger at Mitt Romney and saying “If governor Romney is elected President, he will take America into a costly and bloody war that no American wants and what America can ill afford.”

The election is yours to win or lose, Mr. Romney. Do not let Barack Obama trick you into saying something stupid,

Well, now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Share

Democrat Propaganda Translated

Share

You have to love Democrat propaganda, they really try hard to make us all think that they really aren’t race baiting, dependency creating, and class warfare oriented leftists.

Also, as most readers know, I go over my Facebook page daily, and when my friends post an interesting pic, I use it for the Sunday Link post.  But sometimes, I find a piece of Democratic/Communist propaganda that is so asinine, that I cannot resist translating it into reality.  So, here is the image, and the translation follows…

So, here we go…

We’re not against capitalism, we’re against it’s abuses…

Except when we blame businesses for the consequences of our own policies, and attempt to regulate and tax capitalism out of existence.  

We’re not against religion, we’re against it’s misuse as a political tool.

Except when Hilary Clinton, Al Gore, and other Democrats make speeches at churches, or when we force the Catholic Church to pay for abortions, or when Democrats try to ban prayer, or just so happen to omit God from their platform.  Oh, and by the way, Islam is perfectly OK.  

We’re not against Democracy, we are against the manipulation of the Democratic process by corporate forces.

Corporations aren’t people, but labor unions are.  And, as we all know, evil corporations are running the elections…

Oops, well, that isn’t true, but we can’t give away the advantage that the unions goons give us so we’ll just lie about it.  And don’t worry, the media will cover for us! 

We Democrats love democracy.  Unless, that is, we’re going to lose.  Remember Wisconsin last year?  We were going to lose that vote, so we had our democratic state legislators leave the state.  And those people serving in our imperialist military?  They aren’t going to vote for our guy, so we’ll just keep them from voting altogether.  Because, my friends, nothing says democracy like preventing a vote from occurring.  

We’re not against the American Dream, we’re against it’s unattainability by anyone except the outrageously wealthy.  

Yes, and we’re going to say that while creating so many new regulations, taxes, and obstacles, that no one will hire anyone.  Like the people who are getting their hours cut because of ObamaCare, or the tens of thousands of defense contractor employees that are going to lose their jobs, or the people that have already lost their jobs or insurance plans because of ObamaCare, or the people that have had their insurance premiums increase by thousands because of ObamaCare.  Yes, that’s the American Dream for you.  Less jobs, more expenses, less hours, and more misery.  But don’t worry, we’ll just blame it on someone else! 

We’re not against defending this nation, we’re against putting the corporate interests above those of education, infrastructure, and improving the American life.

Ah yes, we’ve run education…into the ground.  We’ve spent billions of borrowed funny money on making our friends in the teacher’s unions wealthy (those campaign dollars have to come from somewhere).  Johnny still cant read, but he knows that capitalism is bad, social justice communism is great, global warming is “real,” and knows how to use a condom. Oh and God, nowhere to be seen, as government is Johnny’s new deity.  And, by the way, if anyone points out that education is a steaming pile of failure, or worse, tries to change it, we’ll smear them.  And again, don’t worry, the media will cover for us! 

And, with people being indoctrinated and not educated, they won’t know that we’re screwing them.  That, and we’ll blame it on someone else.

Oh, and when our POTUS bows and scrapes before monarchs, or apologizes for  people killing us, or funds Muslim extremists, we’ll shift blame again (we’re good at that, you know).  And when we knew a terrorist attack happened, we blamed it on a YouTube video that no one watches.  And when it is found that we deliberately denied requests for additional security at that embassy, we’ll try to cover it up.

Oh, and it’s all Mitt Romney’s fault, don’t ya know? 

We’re not against America, we’re against the abandonment of it’s values in favor of economic and political security.  

As long as those values aren’t Christian, Jewish, concern anything with freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, separation of powers, or pretty much anything in that outmoded Constitution that the Tea Partiers keep talking about.  Oh, and they’re racists , by they way.  

We’re not against profits, we’re against the profiting at the expense of, and the detriment to, the health and well being of American families.  

Yeah. that doesn’t make sense to us either, but it sounds nice.  And in the end, sounding nice is really what matters.  We’ll take more and more of other people’s money. That money will be wasted, and as a result, products and services will not be purchased, meaning that there will be less jobs.  Investments that create jobs won’t be made.  People will be laid off.  Some businesses will go under, and  more jobs will be lost.  And, we’ll keep on sounding nice when people are upset about our policies-because it’s all George Bush’s fault, right? 

We’re not traitors, We’re not unpatriotic, We’re not elitist.

When we weren’t cozying up to the Soviets, or the ChiComs, or funding the Muslim Brotherhood, or sending guns to Mexico to justify more gun control, or intentionally allowing weak security at our embassies, or selling out our allies, or selling military tech to China, or leaving our borders wide open, or denouncing our country, or blaming it for all of the problems of the world, or getting out kids in uniform killed due to asinine rules of engagement, or bowing before dictators, or tearing down our military, we’re real patriotic.

You got that, you cro-magnon, redneck, knuckledragging, ignorant, racist, teabaggers! Go back to flyover country where you can cling to your guns and religion!

This is our America too.

Well, not really…yet.  Once we get rid of all of that silly freedom stuff, we’ll have our utopia.  We just won’t call it Communist.  And, when it fails, we’ll blame it on someone else! 

And we want it back.

Well, we’ll just forget that we had the White House, and super-majorities in both the House and Senate for almost two years.   And even though the GOP didn’t have enough votes to block a single thing, it’s still their fault.   

Whew!  It took a while, but it was fun. Just consider this translation a community service of the CH 2.0!

Share

My Conversation with Big Bird (an Obama supporter)

Share

Yesterday I had a conversation with a leftist at a Paul Ryan event and I’d like to repeat how it went for the enjoyment of my readers. Paul Ryan was in Michigan yesterday giving a speech at Oakland University in Rochester and I personally made the trip down from my house in Flint to see him speak. It was a good speech and a nice event (the 2008 event with Palin in Michigan was better and I would have liked to see Kid Rock sing something rather than just speak) but what I really want to write about today is a conversation that I had with a protester who was there.

The protester was dressed as Big Bird, and out of curiosity I approached the guy and asked him “Hey buddy, why are you dressed as Big Bird?”

He rounded on me and looked at me with those crazy leftist eyes of judgement and ignorance and said “Romney wants to shut down PBS and I’m here to say that that IS WRONG”. He shouted at various points during our conversation, usually at odd times.

Willing to take the bait and hear what he had to say, I asked “Why is that wrong?”

Big Bird stared at me, as if I was beyond believable. “Are you kidding me? Why is it wrong to cancel PBS?” he asked.

I replied, “Yes, why is it wrong for taxpayers to subsidize children’s television programs, or for that matter any educational programs, when there are clearly so many offerings available from Disney, Nickelodeon, On Demand, online, youtube, or for rent from public libraries? For that matter, why is it more essential for PBS to take money from me in the form of taxes where I could be using that money myself to invest in factories, businesses, education, or to buy products and services for me or my family?”

Big Bird was surprised by this- he apparently was rarely confronted with logical, moral, or important questions at his left-wing group meetings. “Mitt Romney wanted Detroit to go bankrupt!” He shouted back.

Assuming that this meant that I had won the debate regarding funding for PBS (and in doing so made the guy dressed up as Big Bird a giant fool), I decided to follow up on this new line of attack. “Didn’t General Motors and Chrysler enter bankruptcyprotection when Obama was President, and thus ‘go bankrupt’ under him?”

Big Bird shook his head at this one- “That’s not true- Obama saved GM and the entire automotive industry when Romney was trying to force them all into bankruptcy and force that business to his rich buddies in China.”

I shook my head- “Did you read Mitt Romney’s editorial in USA Today about that, because I did, and I don’t think he ever argued that? And for the record, GM and Chrysler did go into bankruptcy under Obama, where the usual bankruptcy process was violated in favor of playing games and rewarding political supporters.”

Big Bird really was growing frustrated with me, and at this point attempted to move away from me so that he could go back to shouting his slogans at passing cars. He was apparently not interested in a spirited exchange of ideas and viewpoints, much like President Obama, and when faced with logic and history he physically rejected these by moving away. But I wouldn’t let him go and followed him, asking “Well, what about those points?”

“I never read Romney’s stupid article,” Big Bird said, admitting that he didn’t know what he was talking about with this issue and was simply a useful idiot for Obama. “But I don’t have to- I know that Romney just wants to lower taxes for all his rich buddies and screw over the working class.”

Still following him as he continued to retreat from me towards a group of his supporters (also dressed up as various Muppets), I asked “Where on his website or in which one of his speeches or in which book of his or what in his past as Governor leads you to that conclusion?”

Big Bird now was back near his group of friends, and they all responded to my questions by shouting various personal insults at me and stating various variations of the same theme that Big Bird expressed. At no point was evidence offered- to be honest, I think that they felt that he lack of evidence of their charges and accusations was a good thing, as if these were so self-evident that attempting to back them up was beneath them (again, very much like Obama).

In 2010 I wrote a post inspired by G.K. Chesterton‘s book The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare. In that post I noticed how Chesterton described anarchists:

This is a vast philosophic movement, consisting of an outer and inner ring. The outer ring- the main mass of their supporters- are merely anarchists; that is, men who believe that rules and formulas have destroyed human happiness. They believe that all the evil results of human crime are the results of the system… these people talk about ‘a happy time coming,’ ‘the paradise of the future,’ ‘mankind freed from the bondage of vice and the bondage of virtue,’ and so on…

…And so also the men of the inner circle speak. But in their mouths these happy phrases have a horrible meaning. They are under no illusions; they are too intellectual to think that man upon this earth can ever be quite free of original sin and the struggle. And they mean death. When they say that mankind shall be free at last, they mean that mankind shall commit suicide. When they talk of a paradise without right or wrong, they mean the grave. They have but two objects, to destroy first humanity and then themselves.

Although I am not a psychologist, I can’t help but see in Obama a man of the inner circle- a person who supports abortion, describes producing life as ‘a mistake’, sees ‘progress’ as the destruction of industry and commerce and production, and at times to almost dislike himself. And Big Bird was the useful idiot of the outer circle, believing that by supporting Obama we will be led to some sort of better future even though the results under Obama are a lesser future.

This is no game people- this election is about a fundamental direction for our nation, towards life, liberty, and protection of property, or towards death, slavery, and destruction of property. These useful idiots need to be countered and opposed, and to do that we must support Romney and Republican candidates on the ticket and help them to win office in 2012. We can later turn to the effort of working over these Republican candidates and holding them to the higher standards what we are called to, but in the meantime we need them in office. Donate today and vote next month.

 Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Share

The consequences of electing leaders with little or no virtue

Share

Samuel Adams once said, “If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”  Now more than ever these powerful words ring true.  In the aftermath of the first Presidential debate we see the works of these vain and aspiring politicians.  We now see how far they will go to hang on to power.  After the President’s terrible debate performance Obama shifted his strategy to lying about Mitt Romney’s position on the issues.  He had to because Romney not only schooled the President in regards to economic policy but he also countered all of Obama’s claims in front of 67 million viewers.

The President lost a great deal of credibility and political ground this past Wednesday and he knows it.  So his only option now is to lie about his opponent and use the Department of Labor to inflate data on a jobs report that are simply implausible.  It shouldn’t have surprised anyone that they were going to get the unemployment number under eight percent by election day.  They used a flawed methodology to skew the jobs data to get the overall percentage where they wanted it.  Many on the right have been talking about this for months.  Additionally people shouldn’t have been surprised when Ben Bernanke announced QE3 six weeks out from Election Day.  This action is designed to prop up the economy for the short term by injecting more money into an economy that is already saturated with dollars.  In the long run the value of our dollar will be destroyed and the purchasing power of each American with be greatly diminished.  All of these actions were implemented to create the illusion of a healthy economy.  They are designed to fool the people into believing that things are better than they actually are.  And the President is using the instruments of government to accomplish this goal.

The reason all this happening is because the President and his team are in survival mode and they will use every dirty trick in the book to win.  The President does not have any honor or integrity; he compromised his integrity (if he had any to begin with) long before he was elected President so these dirty tactics come easy for him.  He is indeed vain and aspiring and now more than ever the country needs the experience patriots to prevent its ruin.  This is the consequences of electing leaders with little or no virtue and this is where we come in.  We must do all we can to hold him accountable and get the word out about these tactics.  We must spread the word through face to face contact with neighbors, coworkers, family, and friends.  The President wants the people to believe what he says and not what they saw during the debate.  He wants the people to believe his lie and for the misinformed/uninformed it’s an easy task.  This is why as patriots who believe in liberty and freedom we have a responsibility to stand up and prevent the ruin of our nation and it starts with a solid ground game.  It starts with us.

If not us – who? If not now – when?” ~ Ronald Reagan

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Original Post:  the Sentry Journal

Share

Did the mainstream media’s bias contribute towards President Obama’s terrible debate performance?

Share

Oh fudge…

We all know the mainstream media is in the tank for President Obama; but did their bias and unwillingness to ask the tough questions throughout his Presidency contribute towards the President’s terrible debate performance? Looking at the debate from a slightly different angle I believe it did.  In an effort to shield President Obama from the impact his terrible economic policies has had on America the mainstream media has not only done themselves and the American people a great disservice, but they may have unknowingly sabotaged the President’s debate performance last night.

By not holding the President’s feet to the fire when abysmal economic numbers were being reported quarter after quarter for the last four years the mainstream media didn’t do his administration any favors.  By not asking the President to defend his policies that clearly have failed they may be indirectly responsible for his undoing.  The strongest steel is forged in the hottest fire and for the last four years President Obama has not felt the heat.  Instead Obama has been protected and coddled by a mainstream media that is more concerned about getting him reelected than reporting the truth.  The problem with that is he can only hide from his record for so long before someone comes along and holds him accountable.

That person was Mitt Romney and he hammered the President with the economic reality the President’s policies has created; a reality that sees 23 million people out of work with anemic growth.  Finally the President had to defend the indefensible and he was unprepared.  After all he had been given a free pass by the mainstream media for four years, how dare Mitt Romney hold him accountable for his record.  He looked irritated and lost as Mitt Romney fired fact after fact at him.  At one point during the debate he asked the moderator to move on to another topic.  He might as well have said “uncle.” The President looked rattled and shaken and not very presidential.  For the first time he had to face an opponent who took the fight to him and he was soundly defeated.

So the mainstream media that adores Obama so much is now asking what happened.  How could their champion who is such a great orator get schooled?  Why was he so unprepared?  To find the answer to their questions they need look no further than their inability to be objective and unbiased.  Their decision to give the President a free pass in order to protect him may ultimately lead to his political demise because he hasn’t felt the heat until now.  And last night he was burned by it.  How’s that for irony.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Original Post:  The Sentry Journal

Note:  For about a day, the author of this post was listed as me, Not John Carey.  It has been corrected, and my apologies to John.

Share

Romney Demolishes Obama in Debate 1: Reality Wins over Myth

Share

This debate has the potential to be the game-changer that Romney needs. Trailing by over 3% in the polls based on the RealClearPolitics average and needing something more than a tie or marginal win that would likely only narrow the polls, Romney delivered a game-changing performance and changed the narrative of this election in the first debate.

President Obama has attempted to make this election into some sort of class warfare or blame Bush election- but Governor Romney was successful in this debate into making this election into a decision on whether or not to continue Obama’s policies or change them. Romney was right- we can go with the traditional American economic system or continue to attempt Obama’s trickle down government economic theories that have been so unsuccessful over the last 4 years and have slowed the recovery. Throughout the debate, Romney lectured Obama on economic policies, the proper role of government in society, theories in leadership, and on basic truths of the world, and Obama sulked and looked away and looked angry (you can tell by his head tilt). There were times during this debate that I felt that even Obama didn’t believe what he was saying- his tone and cadence changed into what I call ‘lecture mode’ as he spewed out talking points and parts of past speeches, while Romney appeared to be in the debate, listening to Obama, attacking his policies and theories of government, and responding to the flow of the debate.

On to the specific points and questions… here are my thoughts:

  • Romney did a skillful job of anticipating Obama’s attacks and was very well prepared for this debate- he came out roaring and hard-hitting. He responded to Obama’s attacks while not getting sucked into his bizarro world and replying to all of the backwards and wrong facts contained in them.
  • Watch the first 15 minutes of the debate- in that first part, I think that Romney hammered Obama pretty heavily, although the middle of the debate was more even.
  • Obama stuck to the ‘$5 trillion tax cut for the rich’ angle over and over, even though Romney said that he doesn’t have this policy- either Obama believes Romney is a liar or Obama is a liar.
  • Obama over and over cited ‘studies’- compare this to Romney, who cited actual commissions and their findings and said the name of the organizations whose studies he was quoting. I wonder whose studies Obama is citing and whether or not they are nonpartisan, well-sourced, and well-researched. I doubt it, and so did Romney later on, when he said he could find 6 studies that said that the study that Obama was citing was bunk.
  • “Look at the evidence of the last 4 years”- good line from Romney, because this is not a debate between Romney’s potential theories and Obama’s potential theories- we’re comparing the evidence of President Obama’s results (as President) vs the evidence (such as it is) of Governor Romney’s results (as Governor).
  • Obama had NO answer for the debt and deficit questions. He didn’t even try to defend himself or his record on this and dodged and ducked is way through it.
  • Romney said that he will grow his way out of debt. Liberals don’t like this and will talk about ‘the math’- but the math that they will use will be static and assume that tax cuts or spending cuts do not affect revenue, and this assumption is poor. Tax cuts may lead to less revenue of the government- but they also lead to employment growth and after that they lead to much greater revenue than without the tax cuts. Romney believes in a dynamic economy- Obama is about locking in and divvying up a static economy. Later I imagine the liberals will do the math over and over on this issue, ignoring the dynamic nature of the economy the entire time.
  • Obama brought up a bunch of taxes that he would repeal if he were President- but he is President and has been President for 4 years and for the first half of that time his party controlled the House and Senate- and he didn’t repeal those taxes. Either he lied here and doesn’t want to really repeal those taxes or he was incompetent and when handed the keys to the car he drove it in a different direction than he should have.
  • When asked about how President Obama would deal with the skyrocketing (and immoral) debt, President Obama talked about spending more money on college and cutting a minor tax break for oil companies that has been around for over 100 years.
  • “I’ve been in business for 25 years, and I have no idea what you are talking about”- Romney to Obama. Great line, because it establishes that Romney knows what he is talking about and that Obama does not.
  • Obama began his discussion about how to deal with the looming and massive policy problems of entitlement reform by speaking about how we shouldn’t call them entitlements. The name of the program is not really what the problem is here, Mr. President- it is the fact that these programs are broke and insolvent and will soon result in poor and elderly facing a reduced standard of living and less security.
  • Romney says “I want to repeal and replace program”- Obama says “Romney wants to repeal”- Romney says “Also I want to replace it- repeal and replace”- Obama says “Yeah, but there are no details on the replacement”- Romney says “Here are the details”- Obama flashes a sheepish grin and shakes his head because he knows that he is selling BS and got caught.
  • Romney addresses the costs of healthcare and talked about how to get the costs of this program under control.
  • Although Obama mentioned several roles of government, the one that he spoke the most about and with the most passion about was new spending programs.
  • Romney talked about the role of government in protecting liberty and freedom and encouraging prosperity- his answer is much closer to what our Founding Fathers wrote about in the Declaration of Independence.
  • Several times, President Obama said “Romney doesn’t have any details” and then in the next sentence said “But based on the details we have, I can predict”. It is not possible for there to both be ‘not enough details’ and there to be ‘enough details to predict numbers’- that’s double-speak.
  • President Obama talked about how he has lately been making progress dealing with the GOP House as his example of how he has been bipartisan- but I predict that next week Obama will give a speech where he accuses the GOP House of being the sole barrier to him being more successful.
  • Obama in his conclusion laid out his vision of the next four years- raise taxes, more money for green energy, more money to teachers, and continue doing what he has been doing.
  • Romney in his conclusion said that he wants to change directions, course change for America, two paths to take, look at the records and results, and vote based on this contrast in success.

Final verdict- big win for Romney.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Share

November 7, 2012 _ Romney Wins By A Landslide!

Share

In the interest of sanity, I felt compelled to find something up-lifting to write about today. In spite of the left stream Media’s consistent predictions of an Obama win in November, the reports of Romney’s political death are premature. I think it is not out of the realm of possibilities  that Mitt Romney will win by a landslide. A landslide to me would have Romney at 55%, Obama at 41%, and Gary Johnson at 4%. believe it or not, I have some support for being so optimistic.

A dear commenter here at CoF left a link to this Business Insider article that claims Romney has a big October surprise planned for President Obama.

This is what people are still not grasping about Romney: He’s about to open up the money floodgates in a way that Obama can’t match.

[…]

Both Romney and Obama have been fundraising consistently for months. But Romney has kept his head down and his account flush, and didn’t try to compete with the Olympics, the Conventions, or the recent mediocre press. He was competent enough to realize that the Obama campaign had to hemorrhage cash in order to maintain their numbers.

And now, he’s got a massive upper hand, which very few people are talking about. Once he and his surrogates carpet bomb the swing states with adverts, by shear mathematics Obama will take a small but predictable dive in the polls.  In the middle of October, Mitt starts looking like a contender again.

We conservatives know and accept that the media is in the tank for Obama and they are going to continue covering for his failures and try to convince voters that a Romney presidency would be a disaster for the middle class. Also, we tend to think that the polls claiming a very tight race or Obama ahead are intentionally biased toward Obama. But, maybe there is a different  explanation of the polls. This article at examiner.com reports on an organization called UnSkewedPolls. The folks at UnSewedPolls say that the companies doing the polling are using a 2008 model of the voter breakdown between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. They claim that when these poll  results are unskewed to reflect today’s break down of voters, the results look very different.

While Mitt Romney enjoys a 47 percent to 46 percent lead over President Obama in theRasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Poll released today, he has taken a 7.8 percent lead in the UnSkewedPolls.com average of unskewed polls.

So, not as big a spread as I am predicting, But 7.8% is not too shabby. And, I have more supporting evidence of a big Romney win. A moth ago I bookmarked a John Hayward article at Human Events. He tells us about a couple of professor at the University of Colorado that have an amazing track record of predicting electoral college results.

Professors Ken Bickers and Michael Berry, of the University of Colorado, have a system for predicting the Electoral College outcomes of presidential races.  Their model has accurately forecast the winner of every presidential race since 1980.  According to an article published by UC-Boulder, they even got the Perot-flavored election of 1992, and the Bush-Gore photo finish in 2000, right.

This year, the Bickers-Berry model shows Mitt Romney winning with 320 electoral votes to Obama’s 218, with a 20-vote margin of error.  A popular vote margin of 53-47 percent in Romney’s favor is predicted.

I could live with those results! And then there is this article at American Thinker that may help explain why Obama is going to lose big time.

When Barack Obama suddenly changed his position on gay marriage, many people (including me) predicted that this could have a dampening effect on black turnout, because many black churches take their Scripture quite seriously.  It might be too much to expect black pastors to urge their flocks to vote for a Republican (and Mormon) candidate, but staying home and not voting might well be an option to protest the discarding of a bedrock tenet of faith.

The Associated Press is now reporting that this scenario may indeed be developing:

So, cheer up, folks. Obama is toast! I am so up beat that tomorrow I am going to be so bold as to offer some advice to President Romney. and, here is a suggestion for you, dear friends. Share a little fruitcake with Jimmy Buffett.  It’ll make you feel better.

Well, now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Share