Mitt Romney’s Speech Before the NAACP ……. Complete Video

 Bookmark and Share While an overwhelming 94% of all African-American voters have supported President Obama, the soon to be Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, stood before the NAACP’s national convention in Texas and stated;

“I believe that if you  understood who I truly am in my heart, and if it  were possible to fully  communicate what I believe is in the real,  enduring best interest of African  American families, you would vote for  me for President.  I want you to know that  if I did not believe that  my policies and my leadership would help families of  color — and  families of any color — more than the policies and leadership of  President Obama, I would not be running for president.”

Such was the case that Mitt Romney made for himself as he walked in to the proverbial Lion’s Den and addressed the nation’s oldest and largest African-American organization and tried to demonstrate that he will be a better President for not just Africfan-Americans, but all Americans.

The speech broke little new ground, and probably did little to change the minds of those in attendance but what it did do was demonstrate that the plight of African-Americans is no different from the plight of other Americans who are suffering from high unemployment and a government that is spending a trillion dollars more a year than it takes in.  But while Romney’s pitch was good, it was anything but well recieved by the obviously and ironically prejudiced, so-called civil rights audience in attendnace.   The less than tepid reception was to be expected given that that the impetus of Romney’s address to the NAACP  was his opposition to President Obama’s policies on everything from trade, the size of government, energy, the economy, education, and the issue that initited the largest round of boos, his opposition to Obamacare.

Still though, Romney set his address up in such a way  that it left African-Americans with some undeniably tough questions to answer to when trying to defend their support for President.

According to Romney;

“If someone had told us in the  1950s or 60s that a black citizen  would serve as the forty-fourth president, we  would have been proud and  many would have been surprised.  Picturing that day,  we might have  assumed that the American presidency would be the very last door  of  opportunity to be opened.  Before that came to pass, every other barrier  on  the path to equal opportunity would surely have to come  down.

“Of  course, it hasn’t happened  quite that way.  Many barriers remain.  Old  inequities persist.  In some ways,  the challenges are even more  complicated than before.  And across America — and  even within your  own ranks — there are serious, honest debates about the way  forward.”

Then Romney opened the door to make a case for why he would be a better President for all Americans , including those of color, than President;

“If equal opportunity in America  were an accomplished fact, then a  chronically bad economy would be equally bad  for everyone.  Instead,  it’s worse for African Americans in almost every way.   The unemployment  rate, the duration of unemployment, average income, and median  family  wealth are all worse for the black community.  In June, while the  overall  unemployment rate remained stuck at 8.2 percent, the  unemployment rate for  African Americans actually went up, from 13.6  percent to 14.4  percent.

“Americans of every background  are asking when this economy will  finally recover – and you, in particular, are  entitled to an answer.”

To additional boos Romney added;

 “If you want a President who will make things better in the African American community, you are looking at him.”


Romney ended his speech to the obviously appreehnsive audience on what was probably the single most conciliatory and positive note possible as closed his remark by notinng;

“You all know something of my  background, and maybe you’ve wondered how any Republican ever becomes governor  of Massachusetts in the first place.  Well, in a state with 11 percent  Republican registration, you don’t get there by just talking to Republicans.  We  have to make our case to every voter.  We don’t count anybody out, and we sure  don’t make a habit of presuming anyone’s support.  Support is asked for and  earned – and that’s why I’m here today…

“Should I be elected president,  I’ll lead as I did when governor.  I  will look for support wherever there is  good will and shared  conviction.  I will work with you to help our children  attend better  schools and help our economy create good jobs with better  wages.”

Some may argue that Romney’s appearance before the NAACP was a waste of time.  They will argue that the NAACP is hypocritically prejudiced organization that is anti-anything that is not liberal and which harbors within their ranks, pockets of a radical black racists.  Be that true or not, Mitt Romney demonstrated that he does not fear differnces of opinion and that he does not shy away from standing up for his beliefs even among those who may not believe in him.  And whether you agree with Romney or not, there was no denying that much of what he said was true.  President Obama’s policies have not worked for anyone,  most especially African-Americans who under President Obama have been negatively impacted by the deficit based culture of dependnecy and rates of unemployment that are higher for them than they are for anyother group of Americans in the nation.   So the question now becomes, is supporting a a person becuase of their color more important than defeating a person whos policies are hurting people of color?

Bookmark and Share

The Hidden Battle For America

Bookmark and Share  By now you’ve probably heard the United Nations issued a proposal last Thursday for a Billionaire’s Tax. If you haven’t heard, bundled within the proposal are taxes that will affect us, the common folk. But the Left can’t run headlines like “UN Calls For Middle-class America To Fund The World” can they? The semi-secret movement would end in a weekend. But make no mistake, this is yet another forced charity proposal to save humankind — at the expense of the American taxpayer.

It may appear to be a righteous pursuit and that is what the Left wants you to believe. Of course, this is merely illusion. Certainly contributing to your local church to help those in need is a noble effort. But shifting truly vast sums of money between countries via mandatory international taxes will only lead to obscene levels of corruption. How many well intentioned acts of charity have gone bad? Everyone has heard of the charity that pockets 80-cents of every dollar or that secretly diverts the money into someone’s pocket. California, offering to send money from custom license plates fees to victims of 9/11, was recently discovered actually funding other pursuits, giving just 1.5% of the cash to the beneficiaries. And we’ve all heard of war-lords leaving food for the oppressed on the docks to spoil. Allow yourself to contemplate a world cash swap based upon international taxes — what would ultimately become routine transactions — and the corruption scenarios become mind-bending.

As a practical matter, funding the world is a poorly conceived idea. It makes no sense. If you take a meal designed for one and split it among three adults, you don’t get three well-fed people. You end up with three under-fed people rather than two. The re-distribution of money works the same way.

And think of the administrative nightmare. In order to implement international taxes a centralized financial bureaucracy would need to be constructed to handle the collections, payouts and bookkeeping. To think the corrupt won’t drop their buckets into that river of money is beyond naive. Further, the only way to avoid one country funding a sworn enemy would be to have all countries under one umbrella, managed by pre-selected politicians that know where their bread is buttered.

But that is the ultimate point, isn’t it? This movement has nothing to do with going green or feeding the hungry. Those are political lies to mask the creation of a major financial bureaucracy, an international control mechanism, to support the transition to a one world government.

Is the thought so outrageous? Simply sell it to the peasants as helping all of humankind. Governments start the money flowing. From your centralized bureaucracy you dangle the dough and propose your terms — cash for allegiance. Here in America, our federal government does the exact same thing to the states — ‘if you want highway money, then enforce this law’. The international community, when united, applies the same principle, we call them economic sanctions. Once the cash for allegiance terms are proposed, countries that comply get to make a deposit and come under the umbrella of control, those that don’t are politically isolated and left to rot. Over time, and plenty of economic hardship, leadership will arise in these rebellious countries that will take the cash or, if necessary, these weakened rebels can be absorbed by force. (continued)

Crusaders, this goes beyond the recent Billionaire Tax and it’s fine print attachments. This movement is a 20, perhaps 30-year quest by the Left. The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) would force America to give away taxes and technology. And America would have no control over to whom the taxes and technology would be redistributed. The Small Arms Treaty is in direct conflict with the Second Amendment and designed to strip America of her guns. These are pressing issues. Just last month, Fox reported the Rio + 20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Agenda 21), proposed over $2 trillion a year in wealth transfers from rich countries to poorer ones, conveniently sold as funding “green infrastructure,” and “climate adaptation”. This is global Socialism. They also proposed new carbon taxes. If you don’t like the size of your utility bills now – just wait. Global welfare? You bet — social programs including a “social protection floor” and “safety nets” for the world’s most vulnerable were proposed. They also want price increases, flat out price hikes, on the use and consumption of anything derived from agriculture, fisheries, forestry, or other kinds of land and water use. Consider that for a moment.

Do you like the idea of paying $500, $1000 or $1,500 for a fishing or hunting license just so most of the money can be shipped to the UN? That is, if they allow you to fish or hunt. How about a federal fee for camping in the woods? You’re using forestry resources, aren’t you? How about an individual swimming permit, say $25 per person – per season, so you can take a plunge in the local lake or hang at the beach? Silly examples? Think again. How else could you get America to fund the world? If you attack American’s paychecks directly, you would create riots and rebellion. No, the better way is to be subtle. Over time classify virtually all of life as a “privilege” and charge a fee for pursuing the privilege. After all, you don’t have to take a swim.

The organized move to convert America to Socialism is happening. The UN isn’t the only attacker. Politicians like Obama, the Clintons, Pelosi, John Kerry and other liberal-socialists, looking for a seat at the international table, are working from the inside to help this occur. These people are legislating away the sovereignty of the United States. Crazy? Why does Obama consistently stomp on the Constitution? Why, when Europe’s economy is failing for all to see, is Obama and the Left forcing European-socialism upon America? Why is Obama supporting the Rio initiatives previously mentioned? Why did Hillary Clinton, on May 23rd, testify in favor of the Law of the Sea Treaty? As you read this, the Small Arms Treaty is being negotiated in talks scheduled between July 2 and July 27th. Obama, not even knowing how negotiations will end, has already said he’s going to sign it. Why? Because it doesn’t matter what the final agreement is. Any step toward banning guns is a positive step, no matter how small. It’s like sculpting — chip, chip, chip, chip. Enough chips and you transform a stone into a statue of Karl Marx.

Ask yourself, are Obama, Clinton and the others really amateurs? Are they really buffoons that are in over their head? Or is it more likely that a small number of hard-left fanatics, having gained power, are using ‘save the world’ tax initiatives, treaties, laws and Executive Orders to achieve their agenda?

You and I, my fellow citizen crusaders, and our children and grandchildren are dangerously close to being committed to funding the world. The UN billionaire’s tax and the myriad other initiatives put forth by the UN and lefty politicians here in the states, are designed to strip us of our money — it’s share the wealth on a global scale. They have already successfully grabbed huge junks of your home equity and retirement plans. Why hasn’t a single person gone to jail? Not one. And now the Small Arms Treaty is designed to take your guns. Obviously, when you’re broke and unarmed fighting a government you’re against is a difficult proposition.

Admittedly, America under attack from within is a tough concept for most people to wrap their head around. The Left uses this to their advantage. They label anyone that puts the pieces of the puzzle together a conspiracy nut. But consider rather than bombs, they are using treaties. In place of grenades, they’re using legislation. Rather than firing bullets, they fire off Executive Orders. The battle to overthrow American capitalism and replace it with American-euro socialism may be hidden from most people’s lives but that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

This election year isn’t just about the economy. It’s about America. Will the country be your vision or theirs.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

Bookmark and Share

Obama Plays Class Warfare With Bush Era Tax Cuts and Proposes a Litany of Loose Ends, Contradictions and Lies

 Bookmark and Share  In an announcement from the East Room of the White House, President Obama masterfully meshed his campaign strategy with economic policy by reapplying his class warfare tactics to the now annual debate on whether or not to extend the so-called Bush era tax cuts.  The President’s carefully crafted approach to the debate tries to paint the picture of a leader who is being logical, reasoned, and bi-partisan but beneath the superficial rhetoric of the President’s wording lies a litany of loose ends, contradictions, and lies.

According to the President;

“The Republicans say they don’t want to raise taxes on the middle class, and I don’t want to raise taxes on the middle class, so we should all agree to extend the tax cut for the middle class. Let’s agree to do what we agree on,”

On the surface, the statement sounds quite rational.  In a nation of voters who usually protest  against the lack of compromise in Washington, and the seeming lack of willingness by Republicans and Democrats to work together, President Obama’s appeal  sounds like a step in the right direction.  His wording sets the stage for the President to portray himself as willing to work with both sides, while casting an image of Republicans as rigidly inflexible, uncooperative, extremists who are out of touch with mainstream Americans as they protect the interests of wealthy Americans.

The President’s approach also dovetails quite well with his campaign’s overriding goal of trying to paint Republican standard bearer Mitt Romney as an out of touch, rich businessman.

If left unchallenged, the framework which the President has created for this debate will work well for him and his Party, but if challenged properly, Americans should easily be able to understand that the President’s framework is little more than a tangled web of contradictions and incongruent thoughts.

To begin, it is glaringly obvious that the President and his Party initiate this whole debate by conceding to Republicans that higher taxes are not good, especially during times of national economic hardship.  But at the same time that the President admits that taxes depress our economy, he also tries to argue that they only hurt when the middle class pay them.  It is a contradiction he makes when he argues that those making less than $250,000 a year will be hurt by a failure to extend the Bush tax cuts but that the same will not apply to those who make more than $250,000 a year.  He then further adds that extending the same tax cuts extensions for the rich are “least likely to promote growth”.

Now if logic plays a part here, even the most lobotomized liberal should be able to see how illogical the President’s claim is.

Why would taxing those who spend the most, invest the most and create the most jobs not have an adverse effect on the economy?  Is the President trying to contend that by increasing taxes on those who make $250,000 a year or more, we will be creating incentives for those same people to spend more, hire more, and invest more?  Where is the logic in that?

The point is that there is no logic in the President’s argument.  Unless of course you are a liberal living in a world that denies the laws of nature and defies everything from gravity, to the free market principles that were a part of the founding of this nation.

For decades now, liberals have mocked the Reagan-Kemp-Laffer economic theory of trickle down economics.  Despite evidence to the contrary, the left contends that wealth does not trickle down.  Instead they exist in a parallel universe where according to them,  the laws of gravity are reversed and that what goes down must come up.  In the alternative reality of a utopian liberal universe, the poor do not accumulate wealth from the rich, the rich become wealthier off of the poor.   But I have yet to see how that actually works.  In the reality I am forced to live in, the Warren Buffetts of the world do not go to poor and ask them for a loans or investments.   In my world, it is just the opposite.

But  for the President and his fellow leftists, admitting that wealth trickles down would be lethal to their political viability.  Such an admission would undercut the potency of the liberal mission to apply the socialist belief that it is the job of the government  is to spread the wealth.

Yet in a day and age when rhetoric trumps reality and facts are merely a set of words which individuals choose to believe or not, President Obama has set himself up on a political stage that he hopes will portray himself as a bipartisan leader who is looking out for the average working American.  But he does so by contradicting himself every step of the way.

In 2008 he promised to be a unifying force in politics.  But ever since taking office in 2009 he has been trying to conquer Republicans by dividing Americans along lines of class.  Despite the fact that The top 2 percent of taxpayers provide approximately 46 percent of all federal income and the that the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers—representing nearly 70 million tax returns—provided 3 percent of all federal income taxes, President Obama and his liberal minions continue to run with the phrase that the rich must pay their share.    Yet with the wealthiest 2% of Americans paying nearly half of the taxes in America, the facts indicate that the rich are paying much more than their share.  But again, those numbers undermine the liberal thought process and it takes the legs out from under the President’s class warfare strategy.

Still, the President’s capacity for framing the debate on the Bush tax cuts was a good attempt to continue to frame the 2012 election in a way that is most favorable to him.  It is easy to exploit the less noble aspects of human nature, especially during tough times.  It is easier to convince people that others are to blame for their lot in life than it is to convince those same people that they have to take responsibility for their own lot life.  And that is the type of campaign President Obama is running.  In his campaign and in his Administration the President tries to claim the high ground.  He tries to claim a willingness to work with Republicans.  Yet such things as his signature piece of legislation, Obamacare, was hardly an example of bipartisanship.  Our President tires to claim that he wants to work with Republicans on creating jobs, yet more than 30 House Republicans jobs bills remain dead because of the President’s refusal to force the liberal led senate to act upon them.

Now based upon the ludicrous belief that those making more than $250,000 have  no impact on the economy, the President attempts to frame his proposal to increase taxes on only those who he deems to be rich, as a compromise.

Well if the President really wants to compromise, I suggest that he do so in a meaningful.  A way that actually uses numbers and facts as a basis for compromise.  So how about we do this?

By refusing to extend the Bush era tax cuts to those making more than $250,000 a year, the President will save what amounts to the cost of operating the federal government for 8 days.  So I suggest that we base our compromise on the fact that even Democrats agree that raising taxes are bad and instead of raising them on anyone, we close all non-essential services of the federal government down for 8 days every year.  No foul no harm.  Now that’s a compromise.

Bookmark and Share

Get Your Free Mitt Romney “Believe In America” Bumper Sticker

Bookmark and Share    What better way to show your support for Mitt Romney than with a Believe in America bumper sticker! Just click on the link here or below to fill out the form below and to let the Romney Campaign know where to send it.

Bookmark and Share

Be Afraid – Be Very Afraid

Bookmark and Share  We now know Obama-tax is the law of the land. It’s a big-ass beast that’s here to stay unless the people kill it. Whether you’re Republican or Democrat, you’re probably not digging the idea of a big tax hike during a “recession”. Americans For Tax Reform estimates some $500 billion over 10 years and further, it includes 20 new or increased taxes already in effect or right around the corner. And not all but lots of these are applicable to wage earners at the $250,000 a year level or below. A level Obama swore he wouldn’t exploit. Worse, just yesterday CNBC reported the house ways and means committee says there are “21 tax increases costing more than $675 billion over the next ten years” and “75% of the costs could fall on the backs of those making less than $120,000 a year.” Geez, what happened to the $250,000 mark?

And as a result of Thursday’s ruling, The American Action Forum (AAF), says, because states now know they can cut their Medicaid rolls back to the federally designated minimums, that tax payers will get hammered further. AAF chief Douglas Holtz-Eakinand said,”It seems safe to say that the [health law] will leave the taxpayer on the hook for “an additional $500 billion or so in federal costs over the first 10 years.” Not good.

Recall in March, the Congressional Budget Office released an ‘official’ government adjustment for the cost of Obama-care over a decade from $940 billion to — here we go — $1.76 trillion. Now, according to AAF, we can throw another $500 billion or so on to that. Super.

Let’s be honest, whether it’s $940 billion or $1.76 trillion or over $2 trillion (if you add in AAF’s new $500 billion) this is absurd. This isn’t a 2-cent increase on everyone’s phone bill, you know, an unpleasant little creature hiding under the stairs. This is a colossal beast — dirty, drooling, dim and dangerously destructive. Doctors don’t like it, businesses don’t like it and the majority of people (about 60%) don’t like it. Who does? The supreme ruler, San Fran Nan and other liberal-socialist politicians and their followers. But they represent the minority.

You’re going to hear lots of speeches that include personal stories of how Obama-care helps Joe. You’ll see lots of television commercials about how Sally was saved by Obama-care. These are designed to tug on your heart. Don’t be swayed. Unrolling benefits before costs was an intentional move by Democrats. Everyone knows the bill always comes after the meal. Pay close attention. It will be interesting to see how many seniors are paraded out as examples of success and how many times the phrase cost-utility analysis is used.

Cost-utility analysis is used to estimate the ratio between the cost of treatment and any benefit in terms of the number of years lived in full health by the patient. Basically, it’s a financial calculation to determine whether a medical procedure is worth it. For example, does an Obama-care bureaucrat authorize heart surgery for a 74-year old? Does a government bureaucrat authorize a life long, expensive prescription to a 15-year old? And what if, say, the prescription doesn’t really bring “full health” but rather just maintains the 15-year old at his or her current level of impairment. This is the Obama-care you won’t see on television or hear in rah-rah speeches — a bureaucrat running cost-utility analysis on a spreadsheet in a cubicle in Washington. Are these death panels? You tell me.

You’ll also be presented with the false choice of Obama-care or back to the old ways. I’d wager virtually everyone in America would be receptive to re-working healthcare. The argument is that this particular healthcare proposal sucks. Sure there are some strong concepts, but the rest just blows — big time. It wasn’t thoughtful legislation. It arose from emotional and fanatical, liberal-socialist ideology — it’s been a wet-dream for the Left for a 100 years — quick we’re in power, rush, rush, sign, sign. It wasn’t even written when it was passed.

All I’m saying is deranged Doc Barack, his loony lab assistant San Fran Nan and the other liberal-socialist scientists had their shot at mixing the test tubes and they concocted this monstrosity. And now it’s on the loose. We need to destroy this monster now, before it destroys us. There are other ways to approach healthcare that don’t need massive government, outrageous taxes and costs or bureaucratic death panels — pardon me, cost-utility calculations.Bookmark and Share

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell Named Chairman of The Republican National Convention Platform Committee

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell

Bookmark and Share  Every four years, in addition to nominating a President and Vice President, the quadrennial Republican National Convention is also responsible for hammering out a platform which is meant to explain what the Republican Party truly stands for.  The process is often contentious and at times the most suspenseful, but largely behind the scene, aspect of the convention and in many ways is every bit as important as the process to nominate our presidential ticket and this year conservative Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell has been given the responsibility of constructing this all important platform.

The announcement came late today from RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.  In it Priebus  also declared that Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota and Representative Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee will serve as Co-Chairmen.

The move is one which is likely to please the conservative base of the Party who largely trust the conservative credentials of all three members of the newly established platform leadership committee.

But the announcement also probably signals that Bob McDonnell is out of the running for Vice President.

For many months now, the popular Governor of the important swing state of Virginia has been considered a top contender for the vice presidency.  But with his new position on the critically important Platform Committee, that would seem highly unlikely.  And the same goes for Marsha Balckburn who White House 2012 has also considered a vice presidential contender.

The prominent responsibility of defining all that the G.O.P. stands is always a difficult task that walks a fine between attempting to articulate a platform that accomplishes a nearly impossible goal……….  unite the nations while taking strong stands on some of the most polarizing issues in the nation.  Such a goal can often be just as a difficult among partisan Republicans as it is among partisan Republicans and Democrats.  And this year, Republicans can anticipate at least few attempted floor fights on several planks, especial those dealing with spending.

Ron Paul supporters have already vowed to employ their traditionally obnoxious behavior to try to help assure that the G.O.P. platform adopts some of their messiah’s irresponsible views.  Such fights are not likely to get very far considering that Ron paul has a grand total of 158 delegates compared to Romney’s 1,512, but thew will certainly receive a great deal of attention from a national and international media that will be doing it’s best to to cover any of the rare unscripted moments at the convention.    All this means that as Chairman of the Platform Committee, Bob McDonnell will go into the convention as a figure who could become embroiled in some of the most controversial aspects of the national convention and that is not the type of figure that Romney will want to nominate as his running mate.

On the flip side, while McDonnell supporters may be disappointed in the downgrading of his chances to be nominated Vice President, conservatives can rest assured that 2012 Republican platform will reflect an authoritative, right of center based explanation of what it means to be a Republican.

According to McDonnell;

“I look forward to hearing from voters across the country as we seek to give voice to the concerns, priorities, and values of the American people. This process is about more than writing; it is about listening. Voters deserve a party who listens to them.  The Obama presidency has been a difficult time for Virginians and for Americans. Our Platform will outline the way forward for our economy and a new and better direction for our country.”

 Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: