Obama’s Race Based Hate Speech Isn’t Really News

    As the sun set on our nation last night, an exclusive video unearthed by Daily Caller Editor-In-Chief Tucker Carlson was aired on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity”.  It was a video of a speech being delivered by then Senator Barack Obama back in 2007.  In it, Senator Obama who was campaigning in a tough race against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, addresses a predominantly African-American audience which he tries to fire up by essentially telling them that the federal government hates black people.  Of course the President didn’t use those exact words.  Instead he painted a picture of a federal government that doesn’t care as much about minorities as it does for other people.

The President made his charge in this speech by trying to claim that that the federal government is unwilling to help minorities who are victims of disasters such as those in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina back in 2005 (see video of the remarks below).

And while he did not exactly say that the federal government is  a bigoted extension of the white man, he tried to explain that survivors of Sept. 11 and Hurricane Andrew received generous amounts of aid while residents of majority-black New  Orleans did not because according to him, the federal government considers those victims in Florida and New York to be “part of the American  family” but it does not considers the minorities of New Orleans to be “family”.

He reached that conclusion by falsely stating that the federal government refused to issue the same fund-matching waiver to the mostly minority communities torn apart by Katrina Katrina that were offered to more affluent and caucasian communities such as the one in Manhattan which was destroyed during the attacks of 9/11 on the Twin Towers.  In addition to being irresponsibly inflammatory, the charge was also false.  As it turns out, the federal government did issue the same fund-matching waiver to Katrina-torn regions that it offered to the victims of other disasters throughout the nation.

As seen in the clip below, Tucker Carlson sums the video up probably better than anyone else.  According to him, Obama’s words were “shocking”, “divisive”, “demagogic”, and “untrue”.

Since the initial reporting of the story, conservative activists have been a buzz. For some, like Tucker Carlson, the story has the makings of that oft mentioned “October surprise” that every campaign hopes to avoid but prays to see their rival’s campaign have to figure out how to recover from.  The problem is that this conservative activist doesn’t see it that way.  Unfortunately, I don’t believe this speech will have any impact on the election.

While the video most certainly shows the soon to be President lying and while it also reveals him to be speaking in what is described as a highly “urbanized African-American accent” which is undeniably uncharacteristic of Barack Obama, what the video does not do is present anything new to us.

We have already seen President Obama launch into his chameleon-like ethnic accents that are designed to endear him to the audiences he addresses.  It is practically a standard operating procedure for the Obama-Biden campaign.  It was perhaps best displayed back in August when Vice President Biden stood before another predominantly black audience in Danville, Va. and shouted with an exaggerated Southern drawl… “They’re going to put y’all back in chains.”

This latest Obama video also does not make news by revealing to us that President Obama is a liar.  Many of us already know that President Obama lies. We know that he lies straight to our faces.  Recent events in Benghazi have made that more than obvious.

Furthermore; we  also know by now that President Obama is anything but a uniter.  We have long understood that this President has built his entire political career on a divide and conquer strategy.  And it has long been understood that this President’s entire reelection effort is based on  a class warfare strategy designed to pit some against others.

If there is anything worth reporting here it is that Mitt Romney raised this very issue back in August while speaking at a rally in Chillicothe, Ohio.  It was there that Romney first told us the following;

“Over the last four years, this president has pushed Republicans and Democrats about as far apart as they can go. And now he and his allies are pushing us all even further apart by dividing us into groups. He demonizes some. He panders to others,” Romney said. “His campaign strategy is to smash America apart and then try to cobble together 51% of the pieces.”

He then added;

“Mr. President, take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago, and let us get about rebuilding and reuniting America.”

So I repeat… President Obama’s hate filled, lies in this speech are nothing new and as such, nothing new will come from this latest example of his deceitful, race baiting tactics and divisive political tendencies.  The truth is that the 47% of the electorate that opposes Barack Obama knew this about him long ago.  So this video will not change their votes.   The other 47% knows Obama is a divisive liar but they refuse to admit it.  So those Obama supporters will also not be changing their vote because of this video.

As for the remaining 6% who describe themselves as undecided, they will be seeing this video through the filter of a  primarily pro-Obama, biased media that will excuse the President’s comments away.  As they get fed the liberal spin on the President remarks, these six percent who claim to be undecided but whom I see as simply slow, dazed, and confused , will accept the liberal narrative given to them.  As such, most of these “indecisive” voters will never realize how much the President’s past words undermine his attempts to portray himself as a unifying force in American politics.  Because of the media’s biases, this swayable six percent of the electorate will probably never allow themselves to accept the fact that President Obama is playing us all for fools.  They should, but they probably won’t.

Still Missing from the Democratic Platform… Hamas and the Right of Return

Under direct orders from the President, on Wednesday, Democrat Party leaders amended their platform to include references to God and to formally acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  As shown here, the amendments were passed, but only after most of the delegates actually opposed adopting those amendments.  But between the initial omissions of those two references and the controversial overriding of the wishes of the delegates to pass the amendments which put those references back in to the platform, two other very sensitive omissions regarding the 2012 Democratic platform and our alliance with Israel have been lost in the mix.  They are the omission of any direct reference to Hamas and acknowledging it as a terrorist organizatio.  And while the language declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel has been restored against the wishes of Democrats delegates, President Obama and his Party’s leaders failed to restore any of the Right of Return language that gives full meaning to recognizing Jerusalem as the Jewish capital.

In 2008, the Democratic Party platform read;

“The United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and abides by past agreements.”

In 2012, the platform reads;

“We will insist that any Palestinian partner must recognize Israel’s right to exist, reject violence, and adhere to existing agreements.”

Gone is any specific reference to Hamas and the requirement to renounce terrorism.  As explained by Daniel Greenfield for Frontpage.com in a piece entitled the “Democratic Party’s New Pro-Hamas Platform”, the use of the phrase “any partner” is quite significant.  According to Greenfield’

“The standard assumption was that the Palestinian Authority under Fatah was the default partner. That’s gone now. The generic “partner” represents an end of exclusivity for the PA and a shift to Hamas. The language is a blank space into which any “partner” can now fit. The old language for Hamas has now become the default language for a Palestinian “partner”, yet to be named, but clearly meant to be Hamas.  The three demands, right to exist, rejection of violence and adherence to existing agreements, sound reasonable, but they’re meaningless. The US decided that Fatah met all three, even though it spent a decade violating all three. “Existing agreements” rather than “Past agreements” is also a significant goal-shift.”

In light of these facts, it would seem that the comedy of errors and controversies surrounding the Jerusalem and God amendments to their platform, may have actually unintentionally created a beneficial distraction for Democrats which has taken our eye off the ball.   After four years of alienating Israel by doing everything from walk out on Netanyahu during a White House meeting and going to eat dinner with his family, to calling upon Israel to return to it’s indefensible 1967 borders, President Obama has proven himself to not be one of Israel’s greatest allies.  In fact he has often gone out of his way to show himself to be more sympathetic for the cause of Israel’s enemies than for Israel.  Now, thanks to the new phrasing of the Democrat platform, President Obama will have greater flexibility to poke his fingers in to the eyes of Israel.   According to Greenfield some of the other most most significant differences in the new Democratic platform come in terms of specific commitments.  Greenfield writes;

The 2008 platform had a number of specific commitments. The most significant ones were “Peace-Supportive Commitments”, assurances from the United States that limit the scope of concessions that Israel will be asked to make.

He adds;

“For example when the 2008 DNC platform said, “l understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. ” This was a way of reassuring Israel that if it continues negotiating, it will not lose its shirt. These commitments were almost meaningless and destructive, because the United States did not actually abide by them. But removing them is a signal that Obama 2.0 will not make any commitments to Israel in return for continued negotiations, besides some of the usual joints arms development and sales that are popular with Congressmen and Senators with defense industries in their districts.”

Essentially it comes down to is this.  While the headlines are bouncing back and forth between Democrats first first not recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in their platform then adding back in and then throwing in additional headlines about the controversy regarding whether or not the Democrat delegates actually supported the amendment, most news sources are not discussing the other important issues here.  They are not addressing the fact that the new language in the 2012 platform and the deletion of specific language from the old 2008 platform makes it easier for a second Obama term to pursue a more pro-Hamas agenda and anti-Israel agenda than we saw pursued in the first term of President Obama.

 

 

Democrat Leaders Amend The Party Platform Over the Objections of the Party Faithful

In what can only be described as a major embarrassment to President Obama and his Party, the second day of the Democratic National Convention kicked off with a controversy that is sure to tarnish liberals for months if not years to come.  One day after Democrats adopted a platform that did not want to acknowledge God by name and for the first time ever, refused to refer to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the liberal Party leaders and managers of those behind the Obama reelection effort, quickly decided to amend the previously approved Party platform by adding the word God and a line stipulating Jerusalem as the capital of Israel back into their platform.

The embarrassing and deeply disturbing part of this attempt to correct the previously approved position of the liberal Democratic Party came when convention chair, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa stood before the delegates gathered at the Times Warner Arena and asked for a voice vote on the amendment.  Passage required two thirds supports and when he asked for all those delegates who supported passage of the amendment to signify so by saying aye, a reasonably large number shouted “aye”.  But when he asked those who opposed the amendment to signify so by saying no, the response he received was louder and stronger than than the one he heard from those who approved the two amendments.  The reaction visibly stunned Villaraigosa and left him an uncomforatble position of making a ruling that Obama reelection strategists wanted him to make in defiance of a democratic vote that clearly opposed the will of the liberal strategists.  After standing in shock for a brief moment, Villaraigosa asked delegates to vote on the two amendments for a second time.

This time the nays in opposition of the two amendments was even louder than they were in the first vote.  Clearly two thirds of the delegates did not wish to acknowledge God in their or platform and they did not want to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  In fact as seen in the video, many of them vehemently both notions.

But following his marching orders from the Party hierarchy, Villaraigosa ruled the amendments as passed.

It was not only a major public demonstration of anti-democratic behavior at the Democratic National Convention it was also proof positive of just how truly out of touch the liberal base of the Democratic Party that is represented by President Obama actually is.  Many of the delegates voting on the two amendments were vehemently opposed to the pro-Israel position and the nod to any respect for religion.

The issue would have been avoided if Democrats and the President initially insisted that their Party platform acknowledged God and that it recognized Jerusalem as the rightful capital of Israel  from the very beginning.  Both are basic to most Americans but after forgetting to make those points in the initial Democratic platform, the Party leaders unwittingly made it possible to record for all the world that most Democrats don’t hold those same beliefs.

#BarackWasSoPoor: Michelle Obama’s Speech Gives Birth to a Whole New Category of Jokes

  The first night of the Democratic National Convention provided liberals with a lot of Obam-like false hope for the reelection of their earth healing, sea slaying messiah.  From Newark Mayor Corey Booker, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, diehard Democrats were given plenty of red meat as they offered statistical half truths and downright distortions of history and the Obama record.  Then there was the Lilith Fair section of the night where a cavalcade of hypocritical liberal women took to the stage to deliver a hypocritically  anti-feminist message that essentially argued women are helpless without government in control of their lives and the lives of their families.

Then came the competitions.

While Republicans served up Hispanic speakers such as New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval, Texas Senate candidate Ted Cruz, Florida Senator Marco and other rising stars in their Party, Democrats did their best to upstage the G.O.P. with an even longer list of liberal Hispanic speakers.  In addition to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa who chairs the convention, the DNC featured the young Hispanic Mayor of San Antonio, Texas, Julian Castro.

On it’s own Castro’s speech was a solid statement of Democratic dogma which nailed the left’s dependency on government by mixing it with the American dream and making big government the source of that dream.  For those on the left it was an inspiring articulation of their principles.  But for those of us who believe that the American dream is based not upon government but rather upon personal freedom and liberty and an opportunity society, Castro’s speech was a watered down version of the speech Marco Rubio delivered last week when he introduced Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney at the G.O.P. convention in Tampa.

Both men focussed on the plight of their immigrant parents and grandparents but coming after Marco Rubio’s speech, Castro’s keynote seemed to simply mimic Rubio’s.  The most notable occasion came when Julian Castro remarked that his mother held a mop so that someday he could hold the microphone that he was addressing convention goers from.  On Thursday night Marco Rubio put it this way;  “My father stood behind that bar in the back of room so that someday I could stand behind this podium at the front of the room.”

But after the DNC turned the night into a competition of which Party had leaders who came from poorer immigrant roots than the other, Michelle Obama took to the stage to deliver a speech that tried to take control on the market on which Party had the presidential candidate who was raised under the poorest conditions.

Last Tuesday, Ann Romney told listeners about how when she and Mitt were married they moved in to a small basement apartment where they ate off an ironing board that doubled as their kitchen table and how they sat at a desk that was a door which straddled atop two saw horses.  Last night Michelle Obama told listeners a story about how when she was first married, Barack Obama’s best pair of shoes were half a size too small, and how in their first apartment the two of them sat in front of a coffee table which Barack found in the dump.  She spoke of the two having a crushing college tuition debt and how in trheir first car she could see the tar  of the road pass beneath them.

From the onset it became quite obvious that the Obama’s did not want people to think that the Romney’s were ever poorer than them.  For the Romney’s the telling of the humble beginnings of their marriage was designed to convey a sense of a man who is self-made and who understands how people struggle with the responsibilities of life.  It was a necessary move to humanize Mitt Romney in the face of a liberal class warfare strategy being waged by the President and his supporters.  But the Obama’s were obviously threatened by Ann’s ability to portray Romney as a man who created his own wealth.  So Michelle told Americans a story about an impoverished young man who picked himself up by his own bootstraps to become a champion of the poor.

In the wake of Ann Romney’s speech, the rekindled Obama narrative was so pronounced that it sparked a new hashtag specifically for jokes about how Barack Obama was.  A visit to #BarackWasSoPoor on Twitter now show tens of thousands tweets mocking Michelle’s attempt to lay the groundwork for her husband’s next round of class warfare.  There you will find  such gems as “#BarackWasSoPoor  He could only afford to date composite women”, and “#BarackWasSoPoor that he is making up for it now spending your money”.  Another example of the creative spin on the theme came from LiberalsRdouchebags who wrote; “#BarackWasSoPoor he wants to turn America into a 3rd world country so he feels at home”.

The reaction which led to this new line of political humor was a direct response to the utterly ridiculous premise that Michelle tried to create for her husband regarding his background.  Contrary to the Dickens-like portrayal we saw from the First Lady on Monday, both Barack and Michelle Obama were actually raised in conditions that were far from what could be described as impoverished.  Michelle attended a magnate school for Chicago’s rich and famous called Whitney Young.  At the same time, young master Barack was not exactly running around in the tough poverty riddled streets of Hawaii.  Instead, back when his mother was earning a $160,000 a year salary, he was hidden behind the sheltered walls of Punahou,  a private preparatory school comprised of Hawaii’s blue blooded elitists.    That is hardly a convincing argument when trying to demonstrate how in touch with the average middle class American the President is.  But they were also facts which were deleted from the First Lady’s speech last night.

Meanwhile as the spontaneous flow of the internet’s maze of social networks began to flood the web with a mix of negative and positive reactions to the introductory night of the Democratic National Convention, the mainstream media mainly gushed with praise of the entire first night of the convention.  Few if any news outlets produced true news stories that lacked any spin or featured “fact check” headlines which clarified the First Lady’s mischaracterizations of some kind of less than humble beginnings that she and her husband shared.  Instead what we saw from the lamestream media was unequivocal high praise for every word, distortion, and misleading message the left fed to voters.

The liberal dominated pre-fabricated news media even saw fit to attempt to proclaim that Democrats in Charlotte were much more enthusiastic and energized by their convention than Republicans who attended their own convention in Tampa.

CNN political reporter Peter Hamby, tweeted the following;

To which I replied ;

Other media outlets ranging from MSNBC and their merry masters of misinformation including Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow echoed similar sentiments and so did those at Al Gore’s dyeing cable station Current, where disgraced former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer claimed the energy at the DNC far surpassed the energy level he believed that Republicans had at the RNC.   No one is quite certain what those assertions were based upon other than the wishful thinking of demoralized leftists who are in desperate search of good news for the President’s reelection effort.  But the truth flies in the face of wishful Democrats who would like us to believe that Republicans are not very enthusiastic about their presidential ticket.  As usual the fact indicate just the opposite of what liberals propose to be true.  Poll after poll has shown that Republicans are more enthusiastic about their presidential ticket than are Democrats with the Obama/Biden ticket.

And to add insult to injury for Obama boosters, political analyst Charlie Cook has demonstrated that Democrats are suffering from multiple enthusiasm gaps.  The two most noticeable manifestations of this problem for the President exists among Hispanic and young voters, two of the groups most responsible for President Obama’s 7% margin of victory in the popular vote during the 2008 election. That spells trouble for Democrats and it also explains the need for leftists media mouthpieces to argue that Republicans are not as supportive of Romney as Democrats are of President Obama.

“We’ve Heard It All Before”

As Democrats kickoff their convention and try to make the case for President Obama’s reelection, Republicans have released a video reminding voters that they’ve heard it all before.

The video offers a compelling comparison of the words used by President Obama in 2008 when trying to explain why he should be elected and the words he is using now, four years later in his attempt to explain why he should be reelected in 2012.  As it turns out, they are the same words.

It helps to emphasize the fact that with the President offering us more of the same rhetoric, is there any reason to believe that his next four years will offer us any results that are different from those which are different from the ones he achieved in the last four years?

Militantly and Radically Pro-Abortion

Barack Obama cannot win on the economy.  So he is shooting the moon and betting it all on social issues.  The problem is that most Democrats are not as militantly pro-abortion as Obama is.  In his testimony before the Illinois senate, Obama delineated between a child and a pre-viable fetus.  What was his delineation?  “A child, a nine month old child, that was delivered to term”.  Are you paying attention, preemies? You were not a human being entitled to human rights (nevermind constitutional rights) until you reached that magical 9 months.  What is not a child in Barack Obama’s mind?  “A fetus, or a child as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb” (speaking of a child who survived an abortion).

Do most Democrats actually believe that a baby is not a child until it is nine months old and has been delivered?  Is a baby born at 8 months really still part of its mother’s body??  If you are a pro-choice Democrat, or even consider yourself pro-abortion, are you this militantly radical?

In 2002 when Born Alive passed the House and Senate and was signed into federal law, the Senate unanimously supported it.  Obama was not in the Senate at the time.  But when the Illinois Senate voted on Born Alive, Obama opposed it four times.  Joe Biden, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Diane Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Chris Dodd, Patty Murray, and other canonized saints of liberalism voted for Born Alive, but Obama opposed it.  It is unthinkable that the President of the United States believes that babies born alive and completely outside of the mother’s womb should be left alone to die or be killed at the hands of another doctor because they survived the brutality of an abortion execution, but this is what our President believes.

Melissa Ohden is an abortion survivor in a powerful new Susan B. Anthony List ad that challenges Obama on Born Alive.  Ohden is one that Obama tried to sentence to death with his militantly pro-abortion views.  Will Obama voters be able to look Melissa Ohden in the eyes and tell her that women’s rights means her death?  Thank goodness Melissa Ohden has passed the magical 9 months requirement to be a living human being!

Obama’s war on the unborn will lose him independent votes if Republicans are not afraid to point it out.  One of Obama’s first acts in office was reversing the Mexico City Policy, which had been put in place to prevent taxpayer funding of abortions overseas.  With Obamacare, despite all his promises that it wouldn’t, taxpayers are forced to fund abortion regardless of conscience or religion.  I wonder if Bart Stupak and Ben Nelson ever feel guilty for how cheaply they sold the unborn when they gave Obama their votes on Obamacare in exchange for government kickbacks.

Barack Obama is far too radical for his own party on abortion.  He is far too radical for independents too.  Pro-lifers must focus on Obama’s militant radicalism and highlight it from now to the election.  And Democrats must ask themselves, even if they are pro-abortion, if the living breathing newborn baby was in their hands after a botched abortion, would they kill the baby or leave him or her in a medical waste trashcan to die?  Would you?  Obama thinks he would.

Mitt Romney’s Speech Promised Americans That He Will Run to Be Our Leader, Not Our God

      Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida did not take America on a grand Reagan-like  journey through the American imagination and it did not leave listeners in awe but what it it did do was achieve all that Mitt Romney needed to accomplish… make voters confident in his competence to lead and in his direction and vision for the nation.  And it did so in a convincing way.  (See the entire speech in the video below this post. Click here for a full transcript of the speech)

The speech wasn’t Reaganesque it was Romneyesque and even though Romney tends to be stiff, his speech did contain a surprising range of energy and conveyed a sturdy sense of convictions which proved that while he may not be express himself like Ronald Reagan, he has the same core principles that Reagan had.   The speech was a well delivered, solid, cerebral statement of his beliefs and his goals.  It was a steady and confident speech that was much like Mitt Romney… steady and confident.  But in one line, Mitt Romney made his case better than any surrogate could have and better than any other President could have made the case for their own election.  It was a line that came as Mitt Romney looked into the eyes of America and calmly stated;

“President Obama promised to slow the rise of the oceans.  And to heal the planet.  My promise is to help you and your family.”

Those three simple sentences summed up the argument against Barack Obama and made the case for Mitt Romney.  It was a line that left an indelible impression on listeners as they were reminded that while candidate Obama tried to present himself to us as a God, President Obama has not even been a sufficient leader.   And at the same time the phrase demonstrated that Mitt Romney gets it.  He understands that an American President is not suppose to have government become the source of our dreams, an American President is suppose to make it possible for the American people to follow their own dreams.  And Mitt Romney made it clear that he understands that under President Obama’s view of government and his economic economic policies, the American dream is quickly turning into an economic nightmare.  Romney’s simple words and lack of poetic verse and visions of grandeur signaled to voters that he does not intend to overstate his purpose in our lives or to overextend governments role in our lives.  He simply intends to get government back under control and the people back to work.

It was a subtle theme of Romney’s speech from beginning to end and it was a message that the Obama team apparently just doesn’t get.

Upon the conclusion of Romney’s acceptance speech, the Obama campaign released a statement that described Romney’s reamrks as lacking any big ideas.  It was proof positive that President Obama just can’t understand that the American people do not want government to come up with big ideas, they want the American people to utilize their own ideas.  The Obama campaign just can’t seem to understand that big government ideas mean big government programs and Americans can no longer afford to support big government.  But Mitt Romney showed us that he understands that the next President must strive to create a government not of big ideas, but rather a government that scales back it size and scope so that it can focus more effectively on that which it is suppose to do… strengthen our founding principles, not change them.

Quite interestingly, Mitt Romney seemed to display his greatest level of emotion and energy during when he spoke about free enterprise.

“It’s the genius of the American free enterprise system – to harness the extraordinary creativity and talent and industry of the American people with a system that is dedicated to creating tomorrow’s prosperity rather than trying to redistribute today’s.” 

When making this point, Romney practically shouted each word out in an a way that made it quite obvious how deeply he believes in free enterprise and how genuinely frustrated he is with our current President’s inability to believe in the talent, creativity and drive of the American people.  It was a rare show of uncharacteristic emotion from Romney that conveyed a sense of just how sincerely passionate he is about the free market principles that have built this nation but are now being put asunder by an all consuming federal bureaucracy.

Much like the entire convention, Romney’s address left voters with messages and themes that will set in as they begin to make the calculations that formulate their final decision about who to vote for on Election Day.  So it must be said that like Mitt Romney himself his speech was not grandiose.  Like Romney himself, his address was simple but sure.  It was straightforward and effective.  Like Mitt Romney, it was a success.

Switchers: They Once Supported Barack Obama But Now They’re Romney Voters

      One of the first videos shown at the first full session of the Republican National Convention was called “Switchers”  (see the video below this post). It features the testimony of voters who in 2008 believed in the hope and change promised by Democrats and the Obama-Biden ticket.  Now four years later, these people know that those hopes were false and that the promises offered by President Obama have been broken.   Today, these disappointed Democrats are enthusiastic Republicans who hold out more hope for the promised changes for fiscal responsibility offered by the Romney-Ryan ticket.

The opinions articulated in this video were probably best summed up by South Carolina Congressman Tim Scott who in his speech at the Republican national Convention stated;

“Our only hope is to change the current occupant of the White House”

Scott closed by adding;

“Hit the road Jack and dontcha come back no more….no more …no more”

Chris Matthews Melts Down While Playing the Race and Class Warfare Cards

      Let me start off by first saying that Chris Matthews needs to kiss my ass.  Now I know that is a rather vulgar way to address readers of this post, but the bottom line is that it is the most appropriate way to respond to the type of deceitful, slanted, disingenuous, and thoroughly unintellectual rhetoric of Chris Matthews, a talentless and brainless buffoon who infamously had an on-air orgasm over a speech made by President Obama before telling listeners that it sent a tingle up his leg and then added, that the thrill he felt running up his leg was an “objectivbe assessment” of the President.

The latest demonstration (see video below) of Chris Matthews’ objective opinion came this morning on Morning Joe, a liberal liberal cesspool that airs weekday mornings on the low rated MSNBC. On this particular show, Matthews appeared on a panel discussing the Republican National Convention along with program hosts, Mika Brzezinski, Joe Scarborough, Willie “Who” Giest, and guests Tom Brokaw and RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.  As the discussion took place, Matthews leaned forward in his seat, pointed finger at Priebus, and stated that he had to call the RNC chairman out for suggesting that the Obama campaign has been running a negative campaign and that the Romney campaign hasn’t.

Matthews than proceeded to enter into a hate filled monologue that blamed the G.O.P., Mitt Romney, and his campaign for playing the race card by having Mitt Romney make a joke about President Obama’s birth certificate and by claiming that President Obama has changed the work requirements for welfare.

With his already ugly mug distorted by anger and the tone of his already irritating voice oozing contempt, Matthews continued his rant by not only being the one who actually did play the race card but by also throwing down the class warfare card.

According to Matthews Romney’s awkward joke about not having to see his own birth certificate because everyone knows where he was born, was a very public attempt by Romney to appeal to racists.  He further contended that a recent Romney commercial that claimed President Obama tried to get rid of the work requirement that makes individuals eligible for welfare was also an attempt to interject race in to the election.  Then adding insult to injury, the hapless Matthews broke into an unrealted chorus of Swing Low, Sweet Chariot by playing the ever present class warfare strategy that Democrats are heavily relying on to pull them through in November by adding this little gem;

“And this thing about,….. yeah your name is Romney, yeah you were well born, you went to prep school. Yeah brag about it.  And this guy has an African name and he’s got to live with it.  Look whos gone farther in their life. Who was born on third base”.

The incident was a perfect example of the liberal logic, or lack thereof , which refuses to allow real issues to be discussed without interjecting sham arguments that are designed to avoid the issue or issues at hand.   In this case Matthews tired to deny the negative tactics of the Obama forces which have gone on record accusing Romney of being everything from a felon to a murderer by claiming that Mitt Romney is running a negative campaign because of his disagreeing with the Presidents attempts to rollback welfare requirements by eliminating a work requirement.  As for the attempt to make Romney’s recent birth certificate joke a racist remark, Preibus and others on the panel quickly explained it as an attempt to to make light of the whole Obama birth certificate issue, not to question the President’s place of birth which both Mitt Romney and Reince Preibus have repeatedly stated they firmly believe took place in the United States.

Nonetheless, Matthews could have probably scored points for liberals had he left his accusation against the Romney campaign there.  The silly joke that Romney about everyone knowing where he was born, may have been innocent but it was politically naive and worthy of criticism, especially when it comes to Romney’s momentary lapse of judgement in using that line.  It provided propagandists like Matthews with the material they needed to exploit their race baiting and fearmongering. But as usual Chris Matthews couldn’t control himself and so he interjected the workfare requirement into his argument.  In that line of argument Matthews and his liberal allies try to claim that the charge that Obama dropped the welfare work requirement is a lie.  They cite partisan Washington Post denials of the truth as proof that Republicans are lying about the Obama record on that issue.  However; the truth is that after Democrats and the President found themselves unable to actually eliminate “workfare” through the legislative process legislatively, they employed a bureaucratic trick that made it possible to gut the work requirements by granting waivers that allows states to avoid requiring welfare recipients to have to work for their assistance checks.

The issue is a legitimate one to raise.  It was legitimate enough for a majority of Americans to want work requirements added to welfare legislation and it was legitimate enough for House Republicans to convince President Bill Clinton to sign the work to welfare requirement into law back in the mid 90’s.  However, now that Democrtas face an uphill battle to maintain any of the power that they have left,  discussing the President’s rollback of those reforms is suddenly a blatant act of racism.

The most glaring hypocritical aspect of Matthews sililoquy was his own prejudices which he articulated when he argued that referring to foodstamps and welfare were obvious reffernces to race.  That argument is a sign of Matthews’s own racist incliniations.  He is the one suggesting that African-Americans are the only people recieving foodstamps and welfare checks.  When Romney or for that matter all other Republicans address those two govenrment programs, they do not refer to them in terms of race, but liberals like Chris Matthews do.  So who are the racists here?  The liberals who discuss welfare and foodstamps as progrmas for African-Americans, or Republicans who talk about making them effective programs designed to offer temporary assistance to all Americans who are in need?  But Matthews trudges on in typical hypocritiacal liberal fashion and accuses the right of playing the race card.

This recent incident with Chris Matthews is further evidence of just how sleazy, ignornat, obnoxious, and far out in the fringe that Chris Matthews is.  And after seeing how abolsutely juvenile, bitter, and irrational he was in his arguments this morning, I predict that Matthews will be among the first casulaties of the 2012 election cycle.  It is obvious to me that liberals like Matthews have begun to see the writting on the wall and copme to realize that their messiah, President Obama, has little chance at getting reelected.  They realize that Americans are worse off than they were when Obama took office and without a decent argument to make for reelecting the President, Matthews and his ilk will only get more bitter and more angry.  Each percentage point that Mitt Romney gains over President Obama as Election Day approaches will infuriate and frustrate them even more than they clearly are already.  And between the time that Mitt Romney wins on election night and the Friday immediately following election night, Chris Matthews will lose total control and make such an ass out of himself that even the clowns at MSNBC won’t be able to defend him or excuse his conduct.

Chris Wallace’s One-On-One Interview With Mitt Romney: Complete Video

    A day ahead of the scheduled beginning of the Republican National Convention, Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace aired a one-on-one interview with Mitt Romney, the soon to be official presidential nominee of the G.O.P.

The approximately 13 minute interview (see the complete interview below) provided viewers with a side of Mitt Romney that is not often seen…his more hard hitting side.  In this interview, Mitt Romney was quite direct in his answers, specifically in the areas concerning such things as the President’s attempts to distract voters from the real issues in this campaign.  Romney also offered very blunt but genuine responses to such questions as the practices used by those who have been in control of Romney’s blind trusts.

Is Mitt Romney a Bold Conservative?

Mitt Romney is going to have a hard time selling his tax plan.  Not because it’s a bad plan, it is actually a very good plan which I have enthusiastically endorsed.  But it does call for tax cuts and guts special interest group power.  It also makes the tax code simpler.  I think Reagan would approve of Mitt Romney’s tax plan.  Then, Romney came out with his energy plan.  I think it is getting harder to deny that Mitt Romney is actually a bold conservative.

Let me contrast Obama and Romney on energy with two pictures.  These two pictures show practical economic common sense versus pure ideology.  They show why every person concerned about our economic future should vote for Mitt Romney and not Barack Obama.

Mitt Romney’s energy plan is a real all of the above approach.  He lets states control the energy resources on federal land within their borders, effectively giving states the choice whether they want jobs, energy independence for their state, and vast economic growth, or they can continue with the failed Obama subsidized green energy idea.

The key to this graphic is the figure in the upper left hand corner.  3.6 million jobs.  Of course, that is solely based on the energy sector and doesn’t take into account economic multipliers and the effects of using energy to drop unemployment below 8%, the increased tax revenue involved, or the additional spending power of families who no longer have to pay close to $4 a gallon for gas so that Saudi princes and Libyan terrorists (who Obama tried to befriend) can get rich off of our commutes.

Romney also doesn’t forsake green energy, but includes it as part of his all of the above approach.  He also includes increased nuclear energy, which is clean and efficient.

Contrast this with Obama’s rebuttal.

Obama doesn’t like Romney’s energy plan because it would cost 37,000 jobs in the US Wind industry.  Can you see what the big problem is here with Obama’s ideology?  Romney’s plan would provide 3.6 million jobs.  Obama complains that in the process 37,000 wind energy jobs would be lost.  Do the math, should we abandon the Romney energy plan to save those 37,000 wind jobs?

Two more key problems with this graphic:

1. Was Obama concerned with saving energy jobs when he cancelled the Keystone Pipeline?  The US Chamber of Commerce estimates that Obama’s decision to cancel the Keystone Pipeline cost 250,000 jobs.

2. Notice the verbiage.  Obama-Biden supports 75,000 jobs.  In other words, Obama’s green energy plan is based on government subsidization of the industry.  Instead of the Romney plan that would create 3.6 million private sector jobs supported by private enterprise, Obama wants us to support his government program where taxpayer foot the bill and get 75,000 jobs.  That’s a pretty weak rebuttal, Mr. President.

In the meantime, we have already gone through four years of Obama’s energy plan and we know it doesn’t work.  We have actual, historical evidence that it doesn’t work.  Forget Solyndra for a moment, what about the jobs Obama has created through his green energy initiatives?  The Gateway Pundit estimates a pricetag of $4.8 million per permanent job.  That isn’t how much each employee makes, that is what the government has spent per new employee.  That is unsustainable.

Wouldn’t you prefer a plan where private companies invest the money to hire people to produce energy that actually works and has practical significance for the American consumer?  The Obama plan is to take tax dollars to produce energy we don’t use on a large scale so that we are stuck buying our gas from people in the Middle East who don’t particularly like us.  I’d much rather buy American.  For Obama, the environmental lobby make that an impossibility.

Mitt Romney has proven that he is not just the anti-Obama.  He is not just a status quo politician who will keep from making things worse.  The Romney-Ryan tax plan and energy plan are not tired RINO talking points.  They are bold change.

 

DNC Betting on Social Issues

It’s the economy stupid.  That is what one very successful Democrat President once reminded people.  He was the same Democrat President who worked with Newt Gingrich to enact the welfare reform Obama gutted and who helped bring about economic growth and a semi-balanced budget.  By the way, he is also the President who backed off of Hillary care, enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, and at least gave lip service to making abortion “rare”.  But I don’t think Obama is taking advice from Clinton these days.

Obama and the Democrats can’t run on the economy this time around.  They are the ones who promised to fix it and made it worse.  When Bush left office unemployment was below 8% and the debt was just under $500 billion.  Democrats don’t even pretend to have the ability to get things back to as good as they were during the Bush years.  We are in the “new normal”, which basically means Obama can’t fix it so let’s talk about something else.

Democrats have already alienated many of their voters by making sure changing the definition of marriage was an official party plank.  Now they are working to alienate the third of Democrats who are pro-life by making sure they hold to a strictly pro-abortion stance as well.  The platform will not include proposed language from pro-life Democrats that would indicate acceptance in the party of differing viewpoints or a desire to find common ground solutions to reducing unwanted pregnancies.

Part of the reason Democrats are pushing for such a pro-abortion platform, that includes taxpayer funded abortion, is that the Democrat President Barack Obama once supported an act that allows for killing babies after they are born if the mother intended abortion, and Nancy Keenan of Naral is on the committee writing the plank.  By the way, if you think what Todd Akin said was controversial, try this one on for size:

“I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” – Barack Obama

Punished with a baby?  Human life is a punishment?  Or how about Barbara Boxer saying that Republicans hate their “moms and first wives”?

The DNC plank that requires pro-life Republicans to continue to pay for abortion and to expand their coverage to Americans (we already pay for abortion overseas) is not popular in a pro-life nation.

Democrats are up against a wall.  Obama took away the economy so they can’t run on that.  Their lies about Bain Capital and Romney’s taxes have been exposed or are irrelevant, so they can’t run on that.  Can Democrats win running on government redefinition of marriage and taxpayer funded abortions of convenience?  I think the polls will send them in another direction real fast.  The country doesn’t agree with Todd Akin.  But they sure don’t agree with Keenan and Obama either.

What Theme Should Democrats Choose For Their Convention?

      Under the theme of “A Brighter Future”, Republicans are preparing to participate in a national celebration of their conservative principles that will culminate in the nomination of Mitt Romney for President but as Democrats prepare to respond with their convention the following week, an effective reelection theme seems to elude them.  Afterall, what appropriate themes could there possibly be for an effort to reelect a President whose Administration has cast a shroud of doubt and despair over the nation that is second only to the days of malaise brought upon us by Jimmy Carter in the late 70’s?

While Republicans prepare to dedicate an entire night of their convention to contradict the President’s “You didn’t build that…. Government built that” ideology, Democrats are left with having to come up with a competing theme that tries to reconcile President Obama’s past record of failures with a pitch for a better future that is based on forging ahead with the same failed policies that got to where we are today.

Currently the Obama campaign has adopted the slogan “Forward.” as their tagline.  The unoriginal and intentionally ambiguous tag line is a very uninspiring rehash of the theme Democrats tried to adopt in 2010, right before they suffered landside defeats at the ballot box.  Below is an ad in which Democrats briefly used the “moving forward” theme in August of that historic election cycle. 

It didn’t work.

Following that ad American’s rejected Democrats in historic numbers and gave control of the House of Representatives to Republicans by wide a margin.  In 2010 Americans did not want to move “forward” with Barack Obama’s policies and they made that quite clear.  So why Democrats believe that two years later, Americans would want to move “forward” with Barack Obama is a little hard to understand it makes it quite clear that with their convention fast approaching, Democrats need some help.

So we at White House 2012 would like to give them some help by having you offer your own suggestions regarding the theme that Democrats should adopt for their convention.  Just pass along your suggested theme in the comments sections of this post or post it on Twitter @ #DEMTHEME  .

We will put the 5 best proposed Democrat convention themes will be put up for a vote in a public poll here on White House on Thursday, August 30th, once the Republican National Convention has concluded.  And the creator of the winning theme will receive a free gift from the White House 2012 Campaign Store.

Why I Love Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan

Let me start by saying this: were I the supreme commander of the United States with absolute control, the Romney tax plan would not be the final product.  I have been and will always be a fan of a pure, simple flat tax where anyone can file with anyone else and the government cannot punish or reward you for how you choose to live your life.

Preface #2: I am a licensed tax professional with experience in preparing thousands of personal, corporate, state and some types of international tax returns, so I do have a little bit of street cred on this issue.

The Romney tax plan is something Paul Ryan can proudly run on

All that being said, I love Mitt Romney’s tax plan.  First, it is not wimpy.  It is not RINO, status quo policy.  The Romney tax plan will be easy to run against for someone like Obama, who is willfully choosing to run as dishonest a campaign as he possibly can.  It has necessary trade offs and it destroys the leverage of special interest groups.  It makes it so that billionaires can no longer zero out their tax returns.  It will be a small tax hike for people like Mitt Romney, who can sit back and collect carrying interest and dividends and live comfortably on that income.  It will be a tax break for the middle class.

The best thing about the Romney tax plan is that it ends the power of special interest groups that is built into the tax code.  Currently, people and corporations are punished and rewarded by the tax system for certain behaviors.  For example: if you go to school, you are rewarded.  If you rent your home, you are punished.  If you put all your money in interest-free muni bonds, you are rewarded.  If you sell your capital assets with less than a year holding period, you are punished.  While there is still uncertainty as to which credits, deductions and loopholes Romney would eliminate, the key is that he will be eliminating many and trading them for a 20% tax cut across the board.

That brings me to the second best thing about his plan: it means a simpler tax return.  Just when you thought it was impossible enough to do your own taxes, with Obama’s plan, now you will have to record your health insurance on your tax return, and if you make a certain amount you will have 3.8% in extra taxes on investment income and .9% extra on wages.  Have fun with those IRS schedules, and don’t screw it up or they’ll catch you two years from now plus interest and penalties.

The Romney plan will eliminate pages of schedules and forms from your tax return and trade them for a simple across the board rate reduction.

If Democrats knew enough about the tax code to understand what this plan does, they would support it too.  Instead of lobbing an extra 4.7% tax increase at taxpayers (including small business owners) who make $200,000, plus an additional 3-4.6% if Obama has his way with the Bush tax cuts, the Romney plan eliminates the tricks that the mega rich use to cut their tax rates below 15%.  It is a targeted change to the tax system, not a hatchet rate increase that harms employers.

If Romney is raising taxes on the super-rich who shelter their income, won’t that hurt growth?  No, and especially not compared to Obama’s plan.  Obama’s plan is to increase the dividend rate to the income tax rate.  That’s a tax hike of up to 19.6 percentage points.  Obama plans to hike capital gains taxes by 5 percentage points.  Romney would leave those taxes as is for the wealthy and eliminate them for people who make less than $200,000.  In other words, if you are middle class you will be able to invest money without paying 15% off the top to the government.  That will change the risk reward ratios for millions of middle class investors and shift capital ownership while encouraging saving among the middle class and not discouraging investment among the rich.

Then there are the tax cuts for businesses to make the US more competitive with other countries.  Also, by switching to a territorial tax system, Romney let’s multinational companies invest in American growth without being penalized and removes the incentive to keep investments off-shore.  This will allow companies to bring overseas profits back to the United States to build headquarters, offices, and manufacturing plants here instead of keeping it in other countries to avoid a US tax hit.  Then the income from this new American growth will contribute to American tax revenues going forward.  With the current system, we tax multinational companies if they want to invest dollars in the US, even if they have already paid foreign taxes on those dollars.

Romney will have some difficulty with certain groups.  For example, if he takes away the $250 deduction for teachers buying teaching supplies in exchange for a 20% tax cut, you can bet there will be ads run with poor children holding out their empty backpacks and a subtext about how they used to have school books but Romney took them away.  If Romney touches the mortgage interest deduction in exchange for a 20% tax break, you can bet the National Association of Realtors will be running ads with homeless people talking about how Romney took their opportunity at home ownership away.  Those special interest groups will hang on tough.  Democrat city mayors who would normally decry the rich for sheltering their income will suddenly discover that tax free interest on municipal bonds is the only thing keeping society from turning into some sort of post-apocalyptic jungle.  Never mind that middle class families will pay less in taxes under the Romney plan; threaten to take away their mortgage interest deduction and most do not know enough to be OK with that.

Then there is the valid argument that the rich already pay their fair share of taxes.  But the Romney tax plan doesn’t target the rich who invest their money in American businesses like Obama’s plan does; it targets the rich who get high life insurance payouts tax-free, who shelter their money in tax-free municipal bond interest, who invest in oil and gas wells to shelter income through high amortization expenses, and so on.  Won’t that hurt investment in oil and gas, you may ask?  Not with Romney as President instead of Obama, because he will open up the avenues for exploration to the point where major companies can hire and get involved.  Then average citizens like you and I will have more opportunity to invest in companies that buy and develop oil fields.  And on top of that, we won’t have to pay taxes on our dividends and capital gains from those investments.

I’ll be honest: I liked the Bush tax cuts, but I didn’t love them.  They made some things more complex and left much of the rest of it at the same complexity.  Meanwhile, they cut taxes across the board.  I applauded their passage and re-passage under Obama, but they didn’t fundamentally change our tax code from the garbled, complicated special interest buffet that it is right now.  I hated Herman Cain’s plan; it would have been a more complicated mess than what we have now, and would have been a huge tax hike on the poor and middle class.  I’ve written extensively about it here at Whitehouse12.com.

I love Mitt Romney’s tax plan, and I never imagined that I would.  Additionally, he hired the right guy, Paul Ryan, to explain it, because it will be much easier to distort his plan for political gain than to spell it out in a way that people can understand.  To be sure, it is an over-all tax cut.  There is no denying that.  However, if it inspires growth as it is designed to, the revenue increase will make up the difference and keep it revenue neutral as promised.  Even the Tax Policy Center, which originally claimed Romney would hike taxes on 95% of Americans, has come clean and admitted his plan is viable.

In my mind, no tax plan will be perfect until it is flat and cuts spending by at least $2 trillion.  But this is the next best thing.

Democrats Run On Empty As Gas Prices Reach Historic Highs

    Today marks another historic milestone in the presidency of Barack Obama.  After more than three years of prices at the fuel pump steadily rising, this past month saw prices spike a whopping 9% and bring the national average of a gallon of gasoline up to $3.61 a gallon for the year, 10 cents more a gallon than it cost in 2011. All of this adds up to what will be the most expensive year for drivers in history.

Now to be fair, the truth is that Presidents and Congresses have only a certain amount of control over the price.  But they could have a a dramatic effect on stabilizing costs.  Fuel prices are largely established through the price set for crude oil on the world market.  Oil, regardless of what nation it comes from is thrown into one big economic bucket and stamped with one price throughout the world.  That is something which many, including Republicans often ignore when they argue for the need for the United States to increase domestic drilling.

While augmented domestic drilling is certainly a wise policy, it would not necessarily solve all our problems or drastically reduce the price of gas.  However; by tapping into the vast wealth of natural, domestic, energy sources like crude oil, the United States would certainly have a stabilizing effect on the energy market and the price of oil.

The high price that we are seeing at the pump now is, despite a sluggish and troubled economy, a direct result of the fact that worldwide demand is up and supplies are coming from increasingly unstable and even dangerous locations of the world; i.e.: the Middle East.  This means that if the United States which consumes most of the world’s oil supply, happened to increase its  production of domestic oil it would help to stabilize the world oil market by increasing the number of stable, secure, and reliable locations that are contributing to the world market, thereby adding a boost to the supply side of the supply and demand dynamic that is causing the unsettling run-up in fuel costs that we are now experiencing.

But President Obama and the liberal lock that Democrats have on Congress through their majority in the U.S. Senate, refuse to take advantage of our ability to exploit domestic natural resources.  It is a policy that not only continues to put undue pressure on the world oil market, it also denies Americans jobs, something which more rational political leaders would see as a necessary initiative at a time when our nation is experiencing its 40^th consecutive month of unemployment in excess of 8%.

In this tough economy, while our federal government should be doing everything that is possible to get the economic engine of our nation moving again, it is clear that President Obama and his fellow liberals will be of no help on this issue.  Since coming to power, the only discernible efforts they have taken in the area of energy have been on the mishandling of the 2009 Gulf oil disaster that saw hundreds of millions of gallons of oil gush into the Gulf of Mexico for several months, and feeble attempts to prop up misguided alternative energy efforts such as the one involving the unfolding Solyndra scandal.

And as the average price of a gallon gas is predicted to reach as high as $3.90 a gallon by year’s end, Democrats, including President Obama happen to be missing in action on the issue.

As Democrats gear up to re-nominate their messiah for President, a deafening silence has fallen over the liberal lala land that the left occupies.

There are no complaints from limousine liberals over the price of gas or even the high unemployment rates which could be reduced by incorporating an all-of-the-above strategy into our national energy policy.   This newfound silence of the left offers a stark contrast to the reaction that liberals had to the high cost of gas in 2006 when it briefly spiked to point in excess of $3.00.

At one point, as Democrats were gearing up for the 2006 midterm elections and gas prices were reaching their highest of the Bush years, Chuck Schumer held a press conference and stated;

“Well, we knew this was going to happen.  Prices are now back up to over $3.00 a gallon again.  If we do nothing, within all too short a time prices they’re going to be at $4.00 a gallon and $5.00 a gallon.  And there’s going to be a giant hole getting bigger, and bigger, and bigger, in every consumer’s pocketbook or wallet.

Back then, The New York Times, the now tarnished, Gray Lady of liberal propaganda, proudly extolled;

“Democrats running for Congress are moving quickly to use the most recent surge in oil and gasoline prices to bash Republicans over energy policy, and more broadly, the direction of the country.”

Six years later and the soaring price of gas is something the left is now seemingly trying to keep a secret.  But in the words of Harry Reid, “the word is out”.

That genie is out of the bottle and at the moment, Democrats don’t seem to have any way to put her back in the bottle or to explain her escape.  No matter how many distractions the left concoct, no matter how much President Obama and his campaign henchmen try to defame Mitt Romney, and despite all the attempts to divide Americans and then piece together a majority of the vote for the President’s reelection, far too many Americans are uniting together under what are becoming very negative campaign ads for Democrats —- the signs which contain the high price for gas that the Obama energy policy is forcing Americans to pay.

Back in 2006, under the direction of Senator Schumer who was the Chairman of Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and in charge of getting liberals elected to the Senate, made bashing Bush on the high price of gas a mandatory theme for candidates to run on.  Fast forward to 2012 and Democrats are not running on the price of gas, they are trying to run as far away from those prices as many Democrats who are up for reelection are running as far away from the democratic National Convention as they possibly can.

It’s just another sign of the liberal hypocrisy that forms the foundation of liberal logic but in the meantime, our President has once again made history.  In addition to making history as the first President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for simply getting elected, other historic firsts include his success in putting nearly a third of the U.S. economy under government controlling by delivering socialized healthcare to our shores, the accumulation of a total debt that greater than the sum total of all previous presidents, his capping of salaries in the private sector, the first downgrade of the U.S credit rating, and the longest sustained period of unemployment in excess of 8%.  Now he has achieved the historic honor of presiding over the most expensive year for motorists ever.   The problem is, I am not sure how much more of the President’s historic achievements Americans afford?

Barack Obama’s “Irresponsible” and “Unpatriotic” Presidency

    Together, the Romney/Ryan ticket’s concentration on their proposals to put our nation on a path to prosperity will force voters to have a national discussion on the economic crisis we are currently struggling through and the cataclysmic economic cliff we are close to falling off of.  As seen in the video below, that discussion will make it impossible for President Obama to avoid being held accountable for his actions and his words.

The message in that video  focuses on several incontrovertible points;

1. In 2008, Senator Barack Obama called George W. Bush “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” for accumulating a debt of nearly 4 trillion dollars.
2. In 2008 that debt amounted to $30,000.00 owed for every man, woman & child in the nation.
3. In 2012, President Obama has accumulated more debt than all 43 Presidents before him, combined.
4. Now, in 2012, president Obama’s accelerated creation of debt  places a tax burden of more than $50,000.00 for every man, woman and child in the nation. That’s $20,000.00 more than under Bush.

Those undeniable points must force every voter to ask themselves whether or not they truly believe that in the next four years, President Obama’s liberal tax and spend  policies will produce results that are any different than the results they achieved during the past four years.

It also forces President Obama to have to explain whether or not he holds himself  to the same standards that he holds other to and if he does, can he explain exactly why voters should not conclude that his reckless accumulation of more debt than any President in history is anything but “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic”?

And while he’s at it, could President Obama please tell us exactly why in the name of all that is decent and good, Americans should reelect a President who is “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic?

Team Obama’s Latest Attacks On Ryan Asks “Why The Hell Romney Picked” Him

    In what can only be considered the epitome of the liberal hypocrisy that is a fundamental component of the thought process that Democrats undergo, Barack Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina recently issued a letter to supporters which tries to convince them to make a financial donation to the President’s reelection effort by claiming Paul Ryan was selected as Romney’s running mate for the sole purpose of raising money from radical Republicans for  his own campaign.

Laced throughout the letter are a litany of lies, a host of hysterically hypocritical claims, and a dubious dose of deceitful distractions designed to do for the Obama campaign all that the letter claims Romney is trying to do by selecting Paul Ryan as his running mate.  It even asks “why the hell” did Romney pick “this guy” and claims that the reason is so that Romney could “reassure and inspire ultra conservative ideologues and corporate interests that they will have one of their own a heartbeat from the presidency”.

With the President’s campaign spending money at a pace that is quickly becoming faster than his ability to raise money, this letter is simply trying to fire up his base and motivate them to finally start donating.  The letter also seems to indicate that many people who have been Obama supporters in the past have not yet made any donation to his campaign this time around.  That would help explain the air of desperation that this letter reeks of and why President Obama is finding himself having to even deceive even his own supporters.

To understand just how deceptive the President is being, let us break the letter down.

A.- “Congressman Paul Ryan is the poster boy for the extreme Republican leadership in a Congress whose overall approval rating is 12 percent”:

1. If that were true, Congressman Ryan would never have drawn brutally harsh criticism for his 2008 vote for the Troubled Asset Relief Program and subsequent vote for the auto bailout, both of which seem to fly in the face of Ryan’s conservative based economic ideology.  However, at the time when the world economy teetered on an unprecedented collapse because of crumbling financial institutions which were freezing lending and thereby halting worldwide commerce, Paul Ryan allowed himself to temporarily forsake ideological purity for what was seen as the immediate need for practical measures to avert a crisis.  TARP was a massive interference in the free market that was sold to Ryan and 90 other House Republicans as a necessary evil to prevent an economic collapse caused by greedy bankers and toxic assets. Predictions that ATMs would be empty, payrolls would be unmet, and that checks would be valueless, provided the incentive to believe that civil disobedience would become the norm and that Armageddon was just one evolution of the earth away, allowed Ryan to compromise his traditional approach to such matters. But that ability to compromise is not an indication of rigid extremism, it was the sign of a man who was willing to make the hard choices needed to provide what at the time were perceived to be suitable and necessary solutions for unique problems involving unique circumstances.
2. If Paul Ryan was such an extremist, how does Team Obama explain away Ryan’s winning of seven elections in a congressional district that went for Michael Dukakis in 1988,  Clinton in ’92 and ’96, Al Gore in 2000, and Obama in 2008?
3. If  Paul Ryan is so radical how is that Erskine Bowles, a liberal described Paul Ryan as “amazing” and called the Ryan Budget that liberals are trying paint as too extreme, to be “sensible, honest, and serious”?  Bowles a two time candidate for U.S. Senate from North Carolina happens to have been  President Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff and was President Obama’s co-chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.  According to some on the left, if given a second term in office President Obama is likely to have Bowles replace Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary.

Cleary, Paul Ryan is not the irrational, radical, extremist that liberals are falling over themselves as they rush to make him out to be and it is also quite obvious that Paul Ryan is far more popular than the left want you to think.

B.- “His plan to dismantle Medicare is deeply unpopular with the general public, and especially undecided voters”;

1. First, Paul Ryan’s budget plan, does not dismantle Medicare, it reforms it by making it solvent and preserving it for future generations.  President Obama is the one who reduces Medicare spending under Obamacare which creates what he calls the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a panel of 15 unelected government bureaucrats, who will ration care to seniors by underpaying doctors and hospitals.  Ryan’s plan gives seniors more control over their own health dollars by allowing them to choose the plan that provides them with the best value for their money through free market competition.  Furthermore; those who are over 55 will have the option to stay under the old plan.  The Ryan plan simply allows future beneficiaries to put a voucher toward “private health plans,” which  would be regulated by the government and required to offer coverage to all beneficiaries.  So the Ryan plan, does not dismantle Medicare!
2. Second, the claim that Ryan’s plan is unpopular, especially among undecided voters, is to say the least am unreasonable stretch of reality. A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll asked Americans whether they would be more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate who “supports changing Medicare for those under 55 to a system where people choose their insurance from a list of private health plans and the government pays a fixed amount, sometimes called a voucher, towards that cost.” 38% are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports Ryan’s Medicare reform, 37% are less likely to vote for that candidate, while 18% say it makes “no difference” in determining their vote, and 7% are not sure.  This does not paint the picture of the electoral death wish that liberals are painting for Romney’s decision to select a running mate who has the courage to present an actual plan to reform a broken system that needs fixing.
3. A new Gallup/USA Today poll shows that the age group that Democrats would hope to scare the most by Ryan’s Medicare reforms, senior citizens, are actually most receptive to his budget which outlines those Medicare reforms. The poll finds 48 percent of seniors (those 65 and over) support Ryan’s plan over President Obama’s plan, while 42 percent back the president. That’s the highest total among the age groups tested.

That all tends to contradict Jim Messina’s claim that Ryan’s proposals are as unpopular as the left would like us to believe.

C.- “Here’s the calculation: Mitt Romney doesn’t need or expect Paul Ryan to convince even one undecided voter to cast their ballot for him. That’s not what he’s on the ticket for.”:

1. Forty percent of voters identified themselves as politically independent in 2011. According to a  2011 Gallup poll more voters identified themselves as politically independent than ever before.  The poll showed that 40 percent consider them independent, a new high that surpassed  previous record of 39 percent in 1995 and 2007.  Gallup’s historical data shows that the proportion of independent voters in 2011 was the largest in 60 years and little has occurred to change that in 2012.  So why would Mitt Romney assume that he doesn’t need a running mate who can appeal to self-described independent voters?
2. A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Sunday and released Monday indicated that among independent voters Ryan’s favorable rating jumped 20 points, from 19% Wednesday through Friday, to 39% over the weekend.  Does that sound like the selection of a running mate who will not be used to appeal independent voters?
3. If selecting Paul Ryan for Vice President is not in part, an attempt to appeal to independent voters, I must again ask  how Team Obama explains away Ryan being elected and reelected six times in a swing district that has voted for every Democrat presidential candidate since Michael Dukakis in 1988?
4. Most independent voters are fiscally conservative and appreciate the type of fiscal responsibility and sanity that Paul Ryan represents.

Those factors demonstrate the illegitimacy of the second claim in the Obama campaign letter.  To suggest that Ryan can’t appeal to independents and that Mitt Romney is not even concerned with winning independent voters is either an indication of just how profoundly unintelligent Team Obama is, or of how absolutely disingenuous they are.

D.- “That means tens or even hundreds of millions more dollars for the Romney campaign and the array of outside groups supporting him — and if current trends hold, more than 90 percent of that money will be spent on TV ads — lying, distorting and trashing Barack Obama”;

1. As demonstrated by Politifact even before the 2012 campaign began, President Obama was already the reigning king of negative campaign ads. No candidate has run more negative ads in American history than Barack Obama did in 2008.  It is how he defeated Hillary Clinton for the Democrat’s presidential nomination and how he won the presidential election. Given that undeniably truth alone, is not obvious that President Obama is guilty of using the majority of his money for the same thing he suggests is an evil practice that Republicans will conduct?
2. President Obama has now officially spent more money on his campaign and done so more quickly than any incumbent in history. So far he has spent well over $100 million on television commercials, outspending Mitt Romney by 5-1, and in some battleground states Obama has outspent Romney by as much as 8-1.  Even more damaging is the fact that as reported by Forbes, 85 percent of the President’s advertising has been a barrage of negative attack ads aimed at Mitt Romney.

So can someone please tell me why President Obama’s campaign is trying to actually demonize Mitt Romney for following the President’s example and competing in the climate that he created?

The answer is simple.  The President and his supporters have a tremendous problem.  It’s the President’s record.  It’s a record so dismal that it makes it impossible for the Obama campaign or their surrogates to promote his candidacy with any positive reasons to vote him.  Can the President run ads touting the longest sustained high rate of unemployment we have seen in history?  Can he run ads promoting his accumulating a national debt that is greater than the sum total of the debt accumulated by Washington to George H.W. Bush combined?  Can Barack Obama offer Americans a “Morning In America-like” Ronald Reagan style ad?  Hardly.  This has demoralized the left and the President’s supporters.  As such, polls indicate that Republicans are far more engaged in the campaign than Democrats or unaffiliated voters  are and this Obama fundraising is indicative of that.  The only way Obama can inspire his vote is to breed a degree of hatred for his opposition that provides the motivation for them to go to the polls and vote against the Romney-Ryan ticket.

This fundraising letter from the Obama campaign manager is a sure sign of just how desperate things are getting for Team Obama and the Democrat Party.  This letter not only incorporates all 3 aspects of the left’s 3D strategy of distortion, distraction and division, it also highlights the degree of absolute hypocrisy and total lack of integrity behind the Obama reelection effort.  But what I find most striking about it is that the Obama campaign finds it necessary to raise money among his own supporters by offering them so many lies and distortions.  If Obama is willing to decieve his own supporters in order to raise money from them, how far you do you think he will be willing to go in decieving undecided voters?