Last Night WAS a Game-Changer…you’re hearing it here first!

Just google “presidential debate not a game-changer” and you’ll find there lurking the liberal media’s true response to the debate. But, as James Carville said on CNN, “Obama just debated with a chainsaw” and lost. Chris Matthews went on yet another crazed rant, while Bill Maher tweeted his disgust, no doubt wondered what he had wasted a million dollars on. President Obama and the liberal media were severely beaten up last night.

A significant victory for Romney in first debate

Had Romney lost the debate, the liberal media would have been quick to place an RIP tombstone on their coverage of his presidential campaign. This is the headline they’ve been building up to in recent weeks. Romney is unknown, lackluster they said. Last night, they learned some unknowns about the President and if they didn’t know it before they realized that teleprompter-less he is the lackluster one.

Mr Obama’s arrogance was that he assumed the RIP sign was already set in stone. Perhaps he thought he only had to do a Clint Eastwood and debate with an empty chair. Or, was he just trying to give a performance to make Jeo Biden look good next week? All sorts of excuses were offered on Twitter under the hashtag #ObamaDebateExcuses, and if this doesn’t give the comedians great material to take the plank out of the eye of their election humor, then I don’t know what will.

Joking aside, Obama found Romney on the top of his game and ready to show the electorate his strengths. What was surprising was not the fact Romney won, but the scale of his victory. CNN released a poll that gave the Governor a 67% win vote on the night.

Of course, Romney had to win, but what will put the wind into the sails of his campaign is the scale of victory. Charles Krauthammer, who I so often agree with, said this was no game-changer, but I have to qualify his statement. True, there is no immediate real game-changer, but if Romney wins on November 6 the suddenly wise media will look back on last night and say “yep, that was a game-changer.”

 

 

New Sleep Disorder Hits American Voters

There are widespread reports across America that voters are suffering from a newly discovered sleep disorder called INROMNEYA. Symptoms are that folks cannot sleep at night for fear that President Obama will win another four years, but Governor Romney is not doing enough to help voters feel rest assured that he will win office and introduce real change.

INROMNEYA is derived from the Latin “Romnus”, the name of the Roman god of success, with the incorporation of the prefix “in” to show contradiction. Voters are being asked the two

Another INROMNEYA Voter Faces a Sleepless Night

litmus questions of INROMNEYA: “Do you experience difficulty voting?” or “Do you have difficulty going to vote?” To which many who voted for Obama in 2008 and said “yes, we can!” are now answering “No, we can’t!”

There is fear among the Governor’s supporters that he may not be able to bed down the economy and nurse voters back to health. Meanwhile, the Obama spin doctors are offering newly patented lies every day to try and help INROMNEYA sufferers.

However, many voters who have tried the newly patented lies have experienced a side effect sickness called Oblamia, which involves throwing up the lies when meeting INROMNEYA sufferers. This leaves both parties feeling nauseous, and leaves behind a very distinctive odor. Some Oblamia sufferers have even reported cases of Mad Biden’s disease, whereby the sufferer starts to drool at the mouth and then bark like a mad dog.

Paul Ryan-again-in-2016, says if Obama wins then we’ll be 2016 and deeper in debt, enough to keep anyone awake!

One international expert, Dr. Poll, says “we may just have to ride this one out, and let the disorder take its course.” However, Dr. Ron Paul-the-other-one-its-got-bells-on-it, says all the diagnoses are wrong and speculative. He explains that voters are not actually awake and lacking sleep, but sleep-walking into the election.

Someone, wake me up when November comes…..in 2016.

 

 

The Trainwreck that is Obamanomics

The Economy is off the rails

American capitalism is the engine room of the global economy. Sadly, the guy in the engine room doesn’t know how the machine works. All he knows is how to toot his own horn. This is the real difficulty of the next four years if President Obama wins another term.

What should worry you is that Romney and Ryan are making little headway in the polls. Obama has the advantage of being the incumbent. George W. Bush had the same advantage, and in spite of negative perceptions abroad and demonization in the media at home, he still won in 2004. Obama has a lot less against him.

Romney needs to focus on the economic issues, not get himself embroiled and lost in skirmishes on foreign policy issues. He needs to do two things. First, he needs to clearly spell out the trajectory four more years of Obamanomics will take us through.

Spell it out:

Step by step.

Failure by failure.

Cent by cent.

The Fraser Institute in Vancouver points out that Canada is more economically free than America. Where is America? Between Qatar and Kuwait. If that is not a warning bell then I don’t know what it is.

Obama sold himself on the economic issues in 2008, which made the economy even worse. Investors and businesses took even more drastic decisions in response to the Obama gloom rhetoric. Having set up the premise that the global economy was in a more severe state than it actually was, he set himself up as savior. He promised he would come in on wings of angels, as Hilary herself told us, to save the world.

And it worked! As an election promise, as a selling point, it worked. As a presidency, it has failed miserably. He got four years and he’s blown it. The engine is going off the rails.

Does this look like a competent driver to you?

The debt piles up. The jobless are piling up. The government is bloated even more. People, as Romney rightly said, are increasingly dependent, and voting for Romney would feel to them like turkeys voting for Christmas.

If Obama stays in situ, then the engine will break down beyond repair. America cannot afford the load he is trying to pull, and nor can the global economy.

Romney and Ryan need to focus. If they can’t get this message home, and if they can’t inspire America to get this engine moving again, then they don’t deserve the job in the driving seat.

Fraser report can be found here: http://www.freetheworld.com/release.html

Where Obama Ranks For Jobs With Other Presidents

   Our beloved supreme ruler is jumping from swing state to swing state on his America’s Recovering Elect Me Tour beating his chest as he proclaims the private sector has added more than 4.5 million jobs over the last 30 months. Let’s hear it for the supreme job creator…

Hip, hip, no way!

Huh?

As usual he’s only telling part of the story. He mentions the “jobs created” number but conveniently skips the inconvenient “jobs lost” number. Sure, the private sector created 4.5 million jobs over 30 months (a pathetic monthly average, by the way) but ultimately it lost more than that. Obama has a net loss of jobs of over 300,000 during his presidential term according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

So, how bad is it?

Unemployment rose in July making it 42 consecutive months over 8%. Also, this recovery, to use the term loosely, has produced the slowest economic growth of any recovery.

“It is the slowest recovery ever,” said Veronique de Rugy, senior fellow at the Mercatus Center, who put together a new study. “I would claim that there’s really no recovery at all.”

Seriously?

Yep. And the last twelve months have seen the slowest wage growth ever, too.

It’s that bad?

It’s pimple-butt bad. Obama’s job numbers, as de Rugy points out, are far worse than Kennedy (3.6 million), Ford (2.1 million) and Carter (10.3 million) who, as Presidents, served for similar or shorter terms than our venerable supreme ruler. In fact, he ranks dead last in jobs, the bottom of the barrel, for all presidents since 1945.

Ouch.

There’s more. He says the private sector is doing fine.

Does he? Well, clearly he needs to put the fruit back in the cake.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

In 2012 Barack Obama Is Campaigning Against All He Campaigned On In 2008

    In 2008, Barack Obama dismissed  every question about him by calling them distractions.  Each of his speeches were carefully laced with attempts to claim his opponents were trying to distract voters from the issue of the economy.

No matter what the issue, it was a distraction.  To question his  relationship to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers was a distraction.  To question how Senator Obama could have sat in the pews of Rev. Wright’s church for decades and not once hear or denounce the reverend, anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Caucasian, race-baiting  hate speech, was a distraction.   Requesting him to produce his birth certificate was a distraction.  Even questioning whether or not Senator Obama, a young man with no executive or private sector experience had any substantial qualifications to be President of the United States were deemed to be a mean spirited, Republican distraction.  In fact in July of 2008, Senator Obama responded to such a questions by stating;

“When we get distracted by those kinds of questions, I think we do a disservice to the American people.”

This strategy prompted then Senator Obama to include in almost all his speeches, the charge that any question or discussion that did not involve the economy was an example of Republicans trying to avoid the economy as an issue altogether.

For instance, in March of 2008 candidate Obama stated;

“We knew that the closer we got to the change we seek, the more we’d see of the politics we’re trying to end — the attacks and distortions that try to distract us from the issues that matter.”

In April of 2008, it was;

“It’s easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit for tat that consumes our politics.”

In May of 2008 he declared;

” Yes, we know what’s coming. … The same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy in the hope that the media will play along.”

Then of course there was my favorite Obama distraction accusation which came in October of 2008 when the young, energetic man who was filled with so much hope and change stated;

“Sen. McCain and his operatives are gambling that he can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance. … I’m going to keep talking about the issues that matter — about the economy and health care and education and energy.”

Four years later and the question now is where is all this talk about substance that President Obama promised?

So far President Obama, his surrogates, and his team of political Chicago hitmen have spent most of their time distracting us from the very same issues he claimed to want to discuss in 2008.

While the President goes out on the campaign trail and tries to claim that his endless spending will eventually solve our problems, his strategists are busy trying to insure that the non-issues are being aired on television and radio, and by his surrogates in the Senate and House.  Instead of producing a plan to grow our economy or trying to pass at least one federal budget before his first and probably last term in office is over, the President’s campaign and his supporters have done nothing but dominate the news with false accusations and ludicrous charges against Romney that are designed to specifically distract voters from the issues and the Obama record.

So far the most substantial knocks against Mitt Romney to come out of the Obama campaign have included such charges as his wife never having worked a day in her life, that Romney is a felon, that he hasn’t paid his taxes, and that he was responsible for the death of a woman who had cancer.  And to establish all this, President Obama has officially spent more than any other presidential in history.  And the official campaign which does not really start until both Parties officially nominate their candidate hasn’t even begun yet.

After four years in office President Obama who came to the White House on the promises of “hope” and “change” has delivered on only one of those themes –change.  As for hope, he has cretaed a government run econmy that has turned into despair and although he has delivered on change, it was not the change that many had hoped he intended.

In 2008, then Senator Obama left many voters believing that he would change the partisan atmosphere in Washington, D.C..  They tended to believe him when he promised to unite our nation.   Back then many believed President Obama when he promised to have the most transparent Administration in the nation’s history.  Fast forward four years and here we are a nation that is more polarized than ever before as President Obama tries to exploit the less fortunate in our society with a mean spirited class warfare strategy that suggest to them that the most fortunate in our society are to blame for their lot in life.  Here we are with a President who has declared that Republicans are waging a war on women.  And here we are waiting for that promised transparency in government on things such as the botched Fast & Furious operation that Obama’s Attorney General has been secretive about that he became the first person in his position to be held in contempt of Congress.  Here we are waiting to find out who from the White House has been leaking sensitive national security secrets in order to boost the President’s reelection chances.

The only change the President has delivered exists in the national debt which in the less-than-three-years. President Obama increased by $4.212 trillion–more than the total national debt of about $4.1672 trillion accumulated by all 41 U.S. presidents from George Washington through George H.W. Bush combined.  And that was not a change in the direction we need or can afford.

The presidential candidate that we saw in 2008 is long gone.  He has been taken away from us through a disastrous series of economic policy failures, and a string of constitutionally questionable partisan power grabs.  From appointing dozens of unaccountable czars that were granted extra-constitutional powers without congressional oversight, to hammering together an entirely partisan healthcare bill that puts one third of the American economy under government control, and to the passage of executive orders that granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants and created unenforceable regulations, this President has taken any of the possibly promising aspects of his 2008 candidacy and threw them out the door.  And so now today, the Barack Obama that stands before us is  not the Barack Obama who asked us for our votes in 2008.

The Barack Obama before us today is a shell of the man he once was.  And whereas President Obama once stood before us and declared his opponents were about to “distract us from the issues that affect our lives by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy in the hope that the media will play along”, today he is the one responsible for those distractions and for using those same tactics.  Today we have a President who is campaigning on all that he campaigned against four years ago and who is trying to run away from his record.  So I ask you this.  Can we afford to a reelect a President who if given the chance, would have to campaign against all that he says he stands for now, in another four years?

If Harry Reid Is Right And Romney Has Not Paid His Taxes, Where’s The IRS in All of This?

   I would like to say that this is the final word on the greatest question and issue facing Americans in this presidential election —– will Mitt Romney release the last 12 years of his tax return records?  But it won’t be.   The issue is one too rich for the class warfare waging left to let go of.  But is it really an issue?

Led by Senate Majority Liar, —- I mean Leader, Harry Reid, the issue of Romney’s tax returns have been pushed to the forefront of the 2012 election, mainly because Harry Reid claims that he knows for a fact that Romney has not paid any taxes.  According to Reid “The word is out.  Romney hasn’t not paid his taxes”.  That word only got out because Reid and other Obama surrogates have put that word out.  Reid says it comes from a very reliable source who told him that Romney has not paid his taxes.

The charge is one which under normal conditions could result in the filing of libel charges but the politically shrewd Reid understood that by making this charge from the floor of the U.S. Senate, he would be immune from prosecution because of a federal law that does not allow one to be sewed in civil court for their statements on the floor of the Senate.  Hence the reason why Harry Reid decided to exploit the august halls of Congress with campaign rhetoric.   Instead of using his time to address the problems facing the nation, he used it to carry out the dirty work of the President’s reelection campaign.

But let us examine the validity of these charges.

Over 80 years ago,  the legendary and notorious mob boss Al Capone saw his long life of corruption and murder come to an end.  But his downfall came to fruition not because our judicial system proved Capone had a hand in murder or corruption.  The end of Capone’s criminal career came about only after the Internal Revenue Service brought Capone to justice in one of most celebrated tax evasion cases in our nation’s history.   According to AccountingWeb,  not long ago, the IRS which  rarely releases documents since tax return information is considered highly confidential and is protected by strict privacy protection laws, released several documents pertaining to the prosecution of Capone under the Freedom of Information Act because of what they described as historical significance and public interest in the Capone case.

Among the documentsmade available were  a 7-page summary  that describes various criminal investigations of Capone during the ’20s and ’30s.  Each of the documents released demonstrate that the IRS was relentless in their pursuit to bring Capone to justice.  In the end, between all the illegal activities conducted by Capone and between the countless people whos death’s he was respionsible for, Capone was found guilty of five counts of tax evasion and failing to file a tax return. Despite everything else Capone did, and the endless array of law enforcement entities that pursued Capone, it took the IRS to convict him of anything.

Which brings us back to Mitt Romney.

Does anyone believe that Mitt Romney could have been a Governor and run two campaigns for President without the IRS ever noticing that he has not paid his taxes?

To think the IRS missed that or just decided to let it go is to say the least, absurd.  That is especially the case since one of the main objectives conatined in President Obama’s budget requests for the Internal Revenue Service has been an attempt to reduce the “tax gap,” between what taxpayers owe each year and what they actually pay.  Even the president’s most recent IRS budget request seeks funding increases for enforcement programs and in believing that every dollar spent on collecting revenue reaps twice as much money in return, the Obama administration even proposed to exclude some IRS enforcement spending from the budget caps imposed by 2011’s debt ceiling deal.  From day one, the Obama White House has consistently placed a focus on enforcing prompt payment of tax bills and this year the President has sought  a $402 million increase over the estimated $5.3 billion budget that the enforcement division already has.

So with all this additional spending and manpower devoted to insuring that people pay their taxes, is there any logical reason to believe that Obama’s IRS just let Mitt Romney slide and refused to prosecute him for evading taxes?  Or could it be that Romney avoided the same fate as Al Capone because unlike Capone, Romney has filed his tax returns and paid his taxes?

If Romney hasn’t paid his taxes for the past decade or more and if the IRS has not yet realized that, than we have bigger problems than Romney’s tax bill.  We have an IRS that is wasting more than $5.7 billion dollars this years, and that has wasted tens of billions over the last decade.

So the real question here is if Mitt Romney has not paid his taxes, how come all the billions of dollars spent by the enforcement division of the IRS did not catch it?   I mean it’s not like Obama’s IRS Administration looked the other way because Romney is a pal of the President.  We’re talking about Mitt Romney, a Republican who many have long known to be a potential challenger of President Obama, not an Obama ally like Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner who failed to pay his own taxes but was rewarded with his cabinet post in charge of the IRS.

The bottom line here is the Romney tax return issue is not an issue.  It is a distraction that the left is tacking on to their class warfare strategy.   If Mitt Romney has been evading taxes, I can’t help but believe that as was the case with Al Capone, someone from the IRS would have picked up on it and Romney would be sitting in prison with the likes of Bernie Madoff, a few former Chicago Governors, or someone who should be sitting in jail, New Jersey’s failed former Governor, Jon Corzine, a man who till this day still can’t figure out where he put $1.6 billion of Goldman Sach’s money.

However; some may still argue that Mitt Romney could put the entire issue to rest if he just followed his father’s example and went public with the tax returns from the past 12 years.  Normally I might agree but so far this election is far from normal.  Mitt Romney has not even been officially nominated for President and the Obama reelection team has already accused Mitt of being a felon, not paying his taxes, and even killing a woman.  What do you think  they will do with a dozen years of Romney’s personal tax returns, no matter what t hey show?

Providing the left with his tax returns would be like providing a gunman with bullets.  In their hands, Mitt Romney’s perfectly legal, personal finances would be used to generate an endless array of distortions that would be turned into distractions from the real issues as they expand their class warfare tactics in attempt to prove that Mitt Romney is a successful and wealthy entrepreneur.  But here’s a newsflash for the left.  We know Romney’s rich!  Now it’s time to deal with the issues and the Obama record that the left is desperately trying to distract us from.

What it really comes down to is that in Romney’s tax returns we will not find the answers to peace in  the Mideast, or the solutions to our skyrocketing unemployment rates.  In Romney’s returns, we will not find the cure for cancer or a way to bring down the crushing national debt that President Obama has nearly tripled.  The reality is that Mitt Romney’s tax returns have nothing to do with the future of our nation and as such they really should not be the only issue we hear our President’s campaign team talking about.  So it’s time for the left to take the advice that can be gleemed by the name of one of their biggest front groups, MoveOn.org, —–  and move on already.

Even Liberals Are Getting Disgusted With Obama’s Hypocrisy

    If liberals are anything, they are first and foremost, hypocrites.  Liberalism is nothing more than a hypocrisy based ideology that operates under an atmosphere of double standards and an agenda that turns all issues into wedges that are designed to divide and fuel a “them against us mentality”.   This is why although you will always find the left preaching the need for tolerance, you will rarely find a liberal who is tolerant of a difference of opinion.  Yet today, even portions of the liberal base are finding that President Obama is reaching a level of hypocrisy that is too much for them to live with.

Such is the case with the CREDO organization, a liberal, pro-Obama group that practices their leftwing activism through the collection of signatures on petitions that they create for every issue they wish to reform.

CREDO recently issued a petition drive that calls upon President Obama to take down a radio ad that he has running in coal producing state’s like Ohio.  In the ad, President Obama tries to portray himself as a pro-coal President who has strengthened the American coal industry.  Now most Americans understand that the notion that President Obama has been good for any industry is ludicrous enough but to claim that he and his policies have benefited the coal industry is down right libelous.   Yet this latest radio spot doesn’t just suggest that president Obama is a supporter and fried of coal, it actually attacks Romney for remarks he made about  a Massachusetts  coal plant back in 2003.   At the time, that specific plant in Salem, Massachusetts was the oldest in the state and it failed to comply with state environmental laws. This particular plant was so egregious that according to a report by the Harvard School of Public Health, its lack of compliance with environmental regulations were  responsible for dozens of premature  deaths and 14,400 asthma attacks each year.

In his 2003 remarks, Romney stated;

“I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people. And that plant kills people….”

In a blatant attempt to intentionally take Romney’s words out of context, the Obama ad implies that Romney was claiming all coal plants “kill people” and deceptively ignored the fact that Romney was referring to that specific plant in Massachusetts which failed to comply with the regulations that would have allowed it to operate in an environmentally sound manner.

But proper context has little to do with liberal logic.

A year ago,  another liberal cesspool called Climate Progress, used the same soundbite that  Obama uses in his ad but they were taking that quote out of context for their own purposes.  Climate Progress tried to use Romney’s words to demonstrate that Romney is a compulsive flip-flopper who has changed his position on the environment.  By taking the Romney quote out of context, Climate Progress tried to convince voters that Romney was once opposed to coal but now that he is running for President, he supports coal.  Move forward a year and now we have Team Obama using the same quote to try and claim that Romney is  supposedly not being as pro-coal as the President  is.

Meanwhile CREDO has now issued a petition calling upon the President to pull the ad, not because it misinterprets Romney’s position, but because as they put it ”

…”An ad suggesting that President Obama is more coal-loving than Romney isn’t just cynical, it’s misleading… Tell the Obama campaign: Drop your cynical pro-coal ad.”

CREDO gets marks for pointing out that the ad is misleading, but only a couple of points because misleading is an understatement.  But they quickly lose those points because like the liberals at Climate Progress, CREDO tries to suggest that Romney has flip-flopped on the issue of coal and that is a lie.

Still, regardless of how inherently disingenuous the left is, even the liberal Obama loving supporters at CREDO are beginning to freak out over just how two-faced the President is.

In their petition, CREDO writes;

“…Right now we need leadership from President Obama to overturn a decision by his campaign to run radio ads in Ohio which promote coal and incredibly actually criticize Mitt Romney for saying (when he was a different person, in 2003) that the pollution from coal plants kills people….”

Note how CREDO carefully tried to avoid laying blame for the ad at the President’s feet.  Rather than accuse the president of being a hypocrite, CREDO carefully phrases their criticism by calling upon the President to overturn the decision by his campaign to run the hypocritical radio ad.   It is an attempt to deny that President Obama is the one in this ad who is making all his outrageously fictitious pro-coal claims.  Instead they try to put the onus on his campaign.  Nonetheless; it is easy to see that even the President’s own supporters are beginning to get uncomfortable by the level of hypocrisy that their messiah is displaying.

Even the left is forced to to question which Barack Obama is running for reelection?  The one who spoke in the pro-coal radio ad offered above, or the one who has promised to bankrupt the coal industry and spent the past four years sapping investment in this industry and  importing coal in to the United States even though it can be found here, right under our feet.  As demonstrated in the video below, the record would seem to indicate that the Obama Administration is anything but a friend to the coal and energy industry.

All of this does prove one thing though.  Liberals, including the President, do have the market on one thing —-  hypocrisy.

Tax-cheat Tim And The Pension Scandal

  With the release of damaging internal emails, suddenly there’s a new scandal developing in Washington. At the heart of the matter is the Delphi employee pension plans affected by the General Motors bailout. Delphi is an auto parts manufacturing company.

It’s a breaking scandal and the information is somewhat patchwork at this point but apparently, as part of the GM bailout deal, the government allowed union workers’ pensions to remain whole while it chopped the pensions of non-union workers — some 20,000 non-union Delphi workers had their pensions slashed by almost half.

Further, there are hints that the decision was not only made for political purposes (Democrats doing the bump and grind with unions) but that the U.S. Treasury Department, led by confirmed tax cheat Timothy Geithner, was the driving force behind it all.

If true, this presents several problems for the administration. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is the federal agency charged with independent administration of private-sector benefit issues, not the Treasury. According to 29 U.S.C. §1342, the PBGC is the only government agency legally empowered to initiate pension termination.

Thus, by federal law it should have been the PBGC that made the pension decisions, not Tax-cheat Tim and the Treasury. The White House and Treasury have consistently denied they were involved claiming it was strictly a PBGC decision. Which bring us to the next obstacle for the administration.

Obama bureaucrats have given sworn testimony before Congress and in federal court claiming the administration had nothing to do with the pension decisions. The recently obtained emails contradict this testimony hinting that Tax-cheat Tim was the driving force and that White House bumblecrats were in the loop. If true, then the Obama administration willfully mislead Congress and the court.

And sacrificed the pensions of 20,000 America citizens to demonstrate their allegiance to unions.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

Three Presidential Debates and One Vice Presidential Debate Are Set for 2012

   The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), has today announced the schedule, formats, and locations of the public debates that will pit the presidential and vice presidential candidates against one another in the 2012 election.

According to CPD co-chairmen Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry, there will be three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate and each will last 90 minutes and begin at 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time.   They will be moderated by a single individual and while each debate will not allow opening statements by the candidates, they will feature two-minute closing statements.

The schedule is as follows:

• Presidential Debate: October 3, 2012 at the University of Denver, Denver, Colorado
• Vice Presidential Debate: October 11, 2012, Centre College, Danville, Kentucky
• Presidential Debate:  October 16, 2012, Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York
• Presidential Debate: October 22, Lynn University, Boca Raton, Florida

The first presidential debate will focus on domestic policy and be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on topics to be selected by the moderator and announced several weeks before the debate.

The moderator will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the topic.

The first and only Vice Presidential debate which will take place in Danville, Kentucky’s Center University will discuss both foreign and domestic topics and be divided into nine time segments of approximately 10 minutes each. The moderator will ask an opening question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the question.

The second presidential debate will differ from the other two by featuring a town hall format that will have questions on both foreign and domestic policy, asked by undecided voters who are selected by the Gallup Organization.  In this forum, the presidential candidates will have two minutes to respond, and an additional minute for the moderator to facilitate a discussion.

The final presidential debate will be dedicated to foreign policy and it’s format will be identical to that of the first debate.

As for additional details, the CPD has recommended that the candidates be seated at a table with the moderator in each of the debate except for the town hall style forum at Hofstra University.  As for the all important question of who the moderators will be, the CPD states that those individuals “will be selected and announced in August.”

While politics has become more of a forum for soundbites than substance, these debates may provide voters with the opportunity to get at least a better understanding of the candidates that attend them.  While each presidential and vice presidential nominee will undoubtedly respond to questions with well tested phrases or points that are chock filled with well rehearsed statistics and jargon, these debates will most likely be more important for the opinions that voters establish based upon the rare, unscripted moments that these debates often offer.

Who can forget when in 1992, President George H.W. Bush looked at as his wrist watch and left the viewing audience with the impression that he was uninterested in the process.  In a campaign where his Democrat opponent was doing his best to paint Bush as out of touch, Bush’s little look at at his watch seemed to simply confirm the point.

Or how about the 1976 debate gaffe of incumbent President Gerald Ford who during a debate with Jimmy Carter, claimed “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.” Taken back by the obviously false statement, he moderator, Max Frankel of the New York Times, incredulously responded , “I’m sorry, what? … Did I understand you to say, sir, that the Russians are not using Eastern Europe as their own sphere of influence in occupying most of the countries there and making sure with their troops that it’s a communist zone?”  The answer to that question should have been “No, I meant to suggest that the people of Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia may physically endure the heavy hand of Soviet intrusiveness, the Soviets have not won the hearts and minds of those people, freedom loving people who seek to themselves of Soviet interference. However; Ford refused to back down from his original statement, and insisted  that Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia were free from Soviet interference.

The results in that election were so close, that many have logically concluded that Ford’s debate gaffe about Soviet domination probably cost him the win.

In 2012, these debates could make or break the election for one candidate or the other, especially since the extreme political polarization that exists in most states will allow a handful of voters in approximately 6 states to probably determine who will win.  That means that the wrong move or the slightest slip of the tongue in these debates could easily change the course of history.

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

  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?

The Hidden Battle For America

  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

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

   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.

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

    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.

CLICK HERE

Freedom. On This Day, It Is Worth Remembering What Our Government Is Suppose To Stand For.

  On this day, 236 years ago, The United States won its independence because we were determined to be free and because we refused to relinquish control of our lives to anyone other than our creator.  236 years later we must not only celebrate the greatness of that moment, we must also recapture that same resolve to be free that the founders of our government intended.

So on this day, here is some worthwhile reading for all Americans.  It is our Declaration of Independence.  When reading this,  please give added thoughts to the section that declares whenever any form of Government becomes destructive to our way of life, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.  If you do, you will come to realize what this November’s election is all about.

Happy Independence Day America.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

---

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1 Georgia:    Button Gwinnett    Lyman Hall    George Walton

Column 2 North Carolina:    William Hooper    Joseph Hewes    John Penn South Carolina:    Edward Rutledge    Thomas Heyward, Jr.    Thomas Lynch, Jr.    Arthur Middleton

Column 3 Massachusetts: John Hancock Maryland: Samuel Chase William Paca Thomas Stone Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe Richard Henry Lee Thomas Jefferson Benjamin Harrison Thomas Nelson, Jr. Francis Lightfoot Lee Carter Braxton

Column 4 Pennsylvania:    Robert Morris    Benjamin Rush    Benjamin Franklin    John Morton    George Clymer    James Smith    George Taylor    James Wilson    George Ross Delaware:    Caesar Rodney    George Read    Thomas McKean

Column 5 New York:    William Floyd    Philip Livingston    Francis Lewis    Lewis Morris New Jersey:    Richard Stockton    John Witherspoon    Francis Hopkinson    John Hart    Abraham Clark

Column 6 New Hampshire:    Josiah Bartlett    William Whipple Massachusetts:    Samuel Adams    John Adams    Robert Treat Paine    Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island:    Stephen Hopkins    William Ellery Connecticut:    Roger Sherman    Samuel Huntington    William Williams    Oliver Wolcott New Hampshire:    Matthew Thornton

Be Afraid – Be Very Afraid

  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.

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

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell

  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.”

 

The Societal Participation Medal

(Author’s note: This peice was written in early 2011 and is being re-posted for it’s continued relevancy to the issues of today)

When we speak of education in this country we are usually speaking of scholastic education. Public and private schools. Reading, writing and arithmetic. In those areas, as compared to other countries, we have been steadily falling down the list in regards to comparative testing.

Just to show a non-partisan tilt to this claim I have referenced a Huffington Post article from late 2010:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/us-falls-

in-world-education-rankings_n_793185.html

It is startling data to be sure and one that politicians and educators have debated for years. How do we ensure a better education for our children and our future?

I am going to leave that battle where it is and move on to a different type of education. An education in which societal not institutional factors are failing our children’s education.

When I was a young whipper snapper we played dodge ball in the school yard. We played baseball, basketball and football in organized leagues and the winners won trophies and medals. In High school, letters were won on the athletic fields and in the classroom based on performance and attaining certain goals. We kept score and were taught to practice good sportsmanship whether we won or lost. These simple, novel parts of my childhood have been lost on today’s society.

There is no more dodge ball in the school yard. Someone could get hurt physically or worse yet their feelings could be hurt.

We still have baseball, football and basketball leagues for youngsters but there are no winners and losers. In many cases scores are not even kept and everyone gets a medal or trophy for simply participating. The same can be said in many cases for high school letters. You participated…here is your reward.

So…are we preparing our children for the trials and tribulations of the real world by sheltering them from the experience of winners and losers?

I could simply be becoming a bitter old man as I hit that magic 40 number. It is possible. Or I could be seeing, in my own children’s participation in academic and athletic competitions that there is a societal shift in the way we view winning and losing. The shift is to deny losing.

It is apparent in watching what happens in society today as compared to then that this shift to deny losing exists has had a profound impact on the way our society has come to view what they believe they are entitled to receive compared to what they have the opportunity to win if they grow their skills and work hard.

If I wanted to be a great baseball player I had to spend countless hours in the back yard throwing into a net and hitting tennis balls with a wiffle bat off my neighbors roofs and sometimes through their windows. I had to practice by playing catch with my dad or my friends. I had to go to practice in order to be able to play in a game. I had to work on skills as instructed by my coaches and run wind sprints at the end of the day. If our team had the better skilled and more prepared players, we won. If we won we were rewarded with trophies and medals. The losers? They received nothing but a pat on the back and a ‘try again next year’. Motivation to get better so they to could get the spoils of victory.

Are we teaching our children how to deal with what happens in the real world by denying them the opportunity to win or lose based upon their own hard work and skill level? I say we are not.

Our society has rapidly become one where the have not’s consistently want to be handed what the have got’s have obtained. Are there exceptions? Certainly there are. Not all people act as if they are owed something for participating. But I see the comparison between what we have been teaching our children in regards to winning and losing and the societal thoughts of a large group of people that they are entitled the same spoils of life that others have obtained through their hard work and knowledge. They want a participation medal.

Are they lazy? Some may be, most are not…but haven’t we taught them over the last several years that the losers receive the same recognition and rewards as the winners? Haven’t we taught them that simply participating is good enough? Could this be related to our poor performance in the classroom? Has taking the difference between winning and losing out of the equation instilled a mindset that no matter how we perform we will get the rewards?

Here’s a novel concept: Let’s allow them to Occupy Real Life.