maddogs hideaway
Welcome to Maddogs hideaway, The poormans predictor. Somedays I just feel like ridin...!
About Me
- Name: MADDOG10
- Location: Beautiful Florida
- Country: United States
- Interests: restoring old cars, winning the lottery, avid football fan, and riding my motorcycles... Both (Harleys)...!!
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Sunday, September 30, 2012
If the U.S. is to survive...!
Will An Obama Victory Spark A Civil War In The US?
America is on the verge of fragmentation and civil conflict because its citizens have lost control of their government and lost faith in its political institutions.
Nineteenth century political satirist Ambrose Bierce once described Washington D.C. as a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles and the conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
Indeed. Not much has changed one hundred years on.
The August 27, 2012 Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just eight percent (8%) of likely voters think that the US Congress is doing a good job.
Most Americans agree that the Democrat and Republican establishments are infested by individuals whose allegiance is not to their country, but to themselves and their political party. Their aim is to be unconstrained by the Constitution and the rule of law and unaccountable to the American people. Their conduct is driven by political expediency and winning elections for the sole purpose of obtaining power and profit.
The US has elections, but it no longer has representative government. The US has a free press, but one that is partisan and dishonest.
The Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists states:
Public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility.
The reality of American journalism bears no resemblance to that official portrait.
Most Americans agree that the mainstream media represented by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and the liberal newspapers are little more than propaganda machines for the Democrat Party and are distorting the news in an attempt to manipulate public opinion to support the reelection of Barack Obama.
Few American institutions remain untouched by political corruption.
Through the blatant careerism of senior officers like the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, even the American military has been politicized to further the goals of the Obama Administration by submitting to the agenda of radical Islam, attempting to suppress free speech, and undermining public trust in the military by allowing active duty personnel in uniform to engage in partisan politics through their participation in a gay pride parade.
The real issue of the 2012 election is the endemic corruption in the federal government perpetrated by a permanent political class, financed by crony capitalism and facilitated by a fawning media (“It’s the corruption, stupid”).
They have brought us to the brink of bankruptcy, have opened our borders to illegal immigration, and have permitted a fifth column promoting Sharia law to infiltrate our society and judicial system.
Most Americans agree that there are anti-democratic and anti-American forces working aggressively inside the government and country to reduce American global influence and to promote the interests of global financiers and ideologies hostile to the United States.
The Obama Administration is expecting reelection and expecting trouble. It has ordered nearly one billion rounds of hollow point bullets. Hint – that type of ammunition is not meant for target practice. The 750 million rounds ordered by Obama’s Department of Homeland Security alone is enough ammunition for the government to fire three rounds into the body of every living American citizen.
When the truth is eventually told, the chronicles of the Obama years will represent the most sordid in American history and symbolize a pivot point when self-serving politicians collaborated with a compliant press to trigger the fall of the American republic.
If Obama wins, the American people should be prepared for economic collapse, a full assault on Constitutional rights, societal fragmentation, and civil strife.
There is a criminal in the White House, who is bent on a radical transformation of the country and must be removed from office if the United States is to survive.
But representative government will not return to America simply by defeating Barack Obama. It will only return when ordinary Americans feel empowered by their political institutions, not oppressed by them.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Two of a Kind - Dumb and dumber.
Obama Has To Draw An “inside Straight” To Win, But The Cards Just Aren’t There
The unskewed polls show Mitt Romney leading by 7.8 points and for good reason.
Barack Obama is not winning any group he lost in 2008, not doing better with any group he won, and not closing the gap with any group he lost.
Looking at his campaign, Barack Obama appears to need three cards for an inside straight to win reelection.
He has the two end “cards”, his Media Cheerleaders at one end and the power of incumbency at the other. Filling in the “cards” between them to gain a winning “hand” looks to be beyond Obama’s reach.
Here are the “cards” he needs to fill in his inside straight.
The female vote: he won this group by 13 points in 2008, and now the Battleground Poll (BP) tells us he is trailing with white women, who will make up at least 39% of the female vote by 9 points. A nine point lead among the first 39% makes getting to a 50/50 tie a tough job (and duplicating a final tally lead of 13 points almost impossible.) He’s not pulling this card.
The “Jewish” vote card was one that helped him in 2008. While they consist of only 2% of the vote, Jews who are a “canary in the coal mine” indicator gave him 78% of their vote. No Democrat has ever won the presidency while getting less than 68% of the Jewish vote. Obama is now at 59% with little chance of improving- not much chance of pulling this card.
The Hispanic vote card: In 2008, Obama got 67% of the Hispanic vote. BP reports Romney is getting 40% of the Hispanic vote, so this is another card he won’t pull.
The African-American card: he got 95% of this group. Silly 94/0 media “poll” aside, there are no credible polls that show Obama doing anything like that; and for the first time ever, black ministers are telling their congregations not to vote at all. He is not pulling this card.
The young vote card: Obama got 66% of this vote in 2008, but the latest survey of young voters shows Obama getting just 61% of this group, so he’s not getting any help from this “card” either.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Friday, September 28, 2012
Friday, September 28, 2012
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Thursday, September 27, 2012
And they want another Four years ??
Axelrod fumbles: Obama doesn’t have a plan to save Social Security
Kevin Danielsen September 25, 2012 8:41 amIn the usual conservative sanitary environment that is MSNBC, liberals can normally relax, knowing that they won’t be asked any difficult questions. However, Time‘s Mark Halperin cordially asks David Axelrod about the President’s plan for Social Security, since he never mentioned it on 60 Minutes the night before …Axelrod begins to stutter… HotAir.com reports on the conversation. We’ve provided a snippet:
HALPERIN: “So what is his proposal?”
AXELROD: “Mark, I’ll tell you what, when you get elected to the United States Senate and sit at that table — this is not the time. We’re not going to have that discussion right now unless the Congress wants to sit at a table and says okay we’re ready to move on a balanced approach to this. The reality of Social Security is this is a much less imminent problem than Medicare. We have extended the life of Medicare for close to a decade through the changes that we’ve made and Governor Romney wants to repeal. But Social Security is a more distant problem. One that needs a solution. But it isn’t as pressing as a Medicare issue.”
That’s correct. He said, ‘this is not the time.’ What do you mean, ‘this is not the time’? You mean to tell me that Obama expects to campaign on the Pelosi-like plan of ‘elect me again, and then I’ll tell you what my plan is’? And then he has the nerve to smugly condescend, saying, “Mark, I’ll tell you what, when you get elected to the United States Senate and sit at that table…”
No, Dave …I’ll tell you what… if the President doesn’t have a plan (even a half-baked one would be nice), then we’re going to get ourselves a new President.
Also, Ed Morrissey makes another good point:
Next, Axelrod admits that Medicare is a bigger problem. That’s true, but that’s not been the position of the Obama administration. They keep claiming that ObamaCare has fixed the problem in the short term and bent the cost curve downward over the long term. Now Axelrod admits to reality, which is that ObamaCare didn’t help save Medicare at all — and that it’s on the same decade-long trajectory to collapse as it was when Obama took office.
What have we found out from today’s episode of Morning Joe? Obama has wasted four years while the entitlement collapse continued to pick up steam, and even after four years, he still doesn’t have a plan to address it.
Well said, Ed.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Monday, September 24, 2012
Old news that keeps on coming BACK...!
You decide if he's a RACIST..!
________________________________________________________________________________________
Allocation of $1.2 Billion Tax Money
2/4/12
$1.2 Billion given to black farmers.
This is kind of an old story but it kind of slipped under the radar and I am bringing the issue back to life.
Dept. of Agriculture
Through the Department of Agriculture, President Obama's administration authorized the use of $1.2 Billion of our tax money to go to black farmers as payback for years (decades) of discrimination. (Fox News, Nov 2010)
Affirmative Action
The Agriculture Department said that this was necessary in "addressing an unfortunate chapter in USDA's civil rights history."
Judge Approved This
In October 2011, a judge gave the government approval. (Huffington Post)
"This agreement will provide overdue relief and justice to African American farmers, and bring us closer to the ideals of freedom and equality that this country was founded on," Obama said in a statement.
Bypassing Congress
Obama is bypassing congress through the Departments so that he can enact policy and spend money. It is a power grab. Not only that, the judge that approved this allowed for reverse discrimination -- money given to people of only one ethnic background.
Read more at http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2012/20120204001-billion-to-farmers.html#Y5TKzatrf1CWuzt1.99
Monday, September 24, 2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Friday, September 21, 2012
Friday, September 21, 2012
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Has he looked in the mirror lately...?
Obama took time out from his busy schedule of ignoring the Islamist rage
(The Hill) President Obama on Tuesday lectured Mitt Romney for “writing off a big chunk of the country” in his first remarks about the GOP presidential nominee’s controversial statements at a closed-door fundraiser.
“One of the things I learned as president is you represent the entire country,” Obama told “Late Night” talk show host David Letterman in a taping at the Ed Sullivan Theater in New York on Tuesday. “If you want to be president, you have to work for everyone.
Our Redistributionist in Chief would never write off any Americans, right?
And here’s a few pulled off my Obama’s Bus/Insult list
- Obama calls Americans “lazy“
- Obama calls country “soft“
- Obama attacking the whole Republican Party in a speech that made him sound like a 5 year old.
- Ed Morrissey and Kevin Edar are attacked by Obama’s social media propagandist director
- Attacks The Heritage Foundation
- Says bad economy is to blame on Americans not thinking clearly.
- Carnival barkers
- Americans For Prosperity
- American’s who disagree with his policies, again and again and again, private citizens all
- Tea Partiers again and again and again, private citizens all
- TEA Party attendees (multiple times)
- Pharmaceutical companies
- Oil companies
- Conservatives and veterans in general (that DHS report)
- People with guns and Bibles
- Nancy Reagan
- US Postal Service employees
- Rush Limbaugh
- Sean Hannity
- Wall Street
- The US Chamber of Commerce
- doctors (remember the whole tonsils thing, plus ear, nose, and throat doctors, among others?)
- dentists
- His own Grandma (and white women in general)
- Special Olympians
- Calling Tea Party members “teabaggers“
That’s a smattering of Americans who have been denigrated and insulted by the elected POTUS. This is the same man who consistently has blamed everyone else for everything.
Oh, and in an unscientific web poll, 75% agree with Romney’s 47% comment.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Monday, September 17, 2012
Monday, September 17, 2012
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Saturday, September 15, 2012
When they tell you that...!
MISSISSIPPI NAACP OFFICIAL CONVICTED FOR CASTING DECEASED'S ABSENTEE BALLOTS
A Mississippi NAACP executive is in jail after being convicted of voter fraud for fraudulently casting absentee ballots, including for four dead people.
Lessadolla Sowers, who is a member of the Tunica County NAACP Executive Committee, was convicted and sentenced in April for what a judge said were crimes that cut “against the fabric of our free society.”
She was given a five-year sentence for each of the ten counts of voter fraud for which she was convicted, but the sentencing judge allowed her to serve the terms concurrently, according to the Tunica Times.
Matthew Vadum, author of Subversion, Inc., notes Sowers’s DNA was found on the inner seals of five envelopes that contained the absentee ballots, and liberal groups like the NAACP and ACORN have had a history of such shenanigans.
According to Vadum, the NAACP National Voter Fund has done everything from registering a dead man to vote in Ohio in 2004 to filling out fraudulent voter registration cards. In addition, ACORN, the community-organizing group Andrew Breitbart and James O’Keefe exposed aiding actors posing as sex traffickers, has had at least 54 people employed by or directly associated with the group convicted of voter fraud. ACORN has also been banned from Ohio due to its fraudulent activities.
And while Democrats try to frame voter ID laws as racist and partisan, Vadum notes many prominent Democrats, such as Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, have successfully prosecuted people for voter fraud, which makes it more difficult for Democrats to argue that voter fraud does not exist and voter ID laws are not needed.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Monday, September 10, 2012
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Social Security, or Democrats slush fund??
Sent to me by someone...........!
___________________________________________________
Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65%
on the first $90,000
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed
as income.
Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away' -- you may be interested in the following:
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want
to take your Social Security away!
And some uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
evolve.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Friday, September 7, 2012
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Obama's Debt Ride... Unbelievable.!
The NATIONAL DEBT before and after Obama:
BEFORE
Over $9 trillion dollars
Candidate Obama at a campaign event in Fargo, ND on July 3 2008: “The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents - number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are gonna have to pay back - $30,000 for every man, woman and child. It’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”
(Source: http://youtu.be/1kuTG19Cu_Q)
AFTER
$15.566 trillion dollars
March 2012 is a milestone in American history: (CBS News) “The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama’s three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.
The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.
The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush’s last day in office, which coincided with President Obama’s first day.
The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.”
(Source: http://goo.gl/3Qmc8)
So Mr. Obama .. you want us to do what? Re-elect you? Really now ..
President Obama’s spending is now not just excessive, but according to former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen (the head of our military) PRESIDENT OBAMA’S SPENDING HABITS ARE A NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT (Source: http://goo.gl/J340D).
So .. Mr. Obama .. according to your own words, you currently epitomize irresponsibility. What don’t you get about not spending money we don’t have? And unpatriotic? Well you’re not that either according to your own statement, and that’s probably the reason you don’t get along with a very patriotic General Petraeus, whose biography implies you’re not fit for command (Source: http://goo.gl/JjYYv).
More reading >
Change: Obama’s addition to national debt now surpasses Bush
March 20 2012
http://goo.gl/zK0Tx
Mullen: Despite deal, debt still poses the biggest threat to U.S. national security
August 2 2011
http://goo.gl/J340D
+ + + +
The FEDERAL DEFICIT before and after Obama:
BEFORE
$492 billion dollars in 2009
Budget deficits under President George W. Bush were $389 billion in 2008 and $492 billion in 2009.
This is what newly elected President Obama had to say about this: “And that’s why today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks At The Fiscal Responsibility Summit, Washington, D.C., February 23 2009)
(Source: http://goo.gl/LzreI)
AFTER
FY 2012 – $1.25 trillion dollars
President Obama in 2009 promised to cut the inherited deficit in HALF by the end of his term. It’s now 2012, so what has really happened? President Obama has failed the American public and here’s the proof:
“The 10-year window of the president’s budget shows $6.4 trillion in additional deficits, an increase of $3.5 trillion from current law, for fiscal years 2013 to 2022.
This is the fourth year in a row with deficits over a trillion dollars.
o FY 2009 – $1.4 trillion
o FY 2010 – $1.3 trillion
o FY 2011 – $1.3 trillion
o FY 2012 – $1.25 trillion”
(Source: http://goo.gl/upGLA)
DOES THIS LOOK LIKE CUTTING THE DEFICIT IN HALF? PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS NEARLY TRIPLED IT! I mean everyone can understand someone voting along party lines to promote their candidate and party, but come on now, can anyone choose to re-elect President Obama with a clear conscience anymore? His spending agenda is systematically dismantling our finances and economy - whether it’s intentional or not, he’s doing it. You might want to watch MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan perfectly explain the tens of trillions of dollars currently being systematically extracted from America through banking, trade and taxes (Source: http://goo.gl/1Aj4G).President Obama is clearly and unequivocally assisting this extraction, many believing it to be intentional, including Florida Rep. Allen West, who says Obama is intentionally killing the economy (Source: http://goo.gl/4LLoQ).
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
This is the correct answer
Poll: Only 31% believe we’re better off than four years ago
POSTED AT 10:01 AM ON SEPTEMBER 4, 2012 BY ED MORRISSEY
No wonder Democrats tried their best to run away from the Reagan Metric this weekend. Surrogates such as David Axelrod, David Plouffe, and Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley tried dodging the inevitable question in every presidential election:are we better off now than we were four years ago? A new poll from The Hill shows why Democrats want to change the subject every time that question gets asked:
A majority of voters believe the country is worse off today than it was four years ago and that President Obama does not deserve reelection, according to a new poll for The Hill.
Fifty-two percent of likely voters say the nation is in “worse condition” now than in September 2008, while 54 percent say Obama does not deserve reelection based solely on his job performance.
Only 31 percent of voters believe the nation is in “better condition,” while 15 percent say it is “about the same,” the poll found. Just 40 percent of voters said Obama deserves reelection.
The poll, conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, has an R+2 likely-voter sample at 34/36/30. That’s nearly identical to 2010′s 35/35/30 turnout, and given the enthusiasm deficit seen this year among Democrats, looks like a very defensible model for the general election. The main questions have much more separation than a 2-3 point swing in partisan affiliation would impact, anyway.
These numbers look bad for Obama all the way down the line. On the better off question, most demos offer majorities for “worse,” including critical demos like 18-39YOs (33/50 better/worse), those earning between $20K-$40K (25/58), and especially independents (21/60). Even women offer a strong plurality of failure (33/47). Only Democrats (64/20), liberals (62/14), and those making more than $100,000 per year (52/38) think things have improved.
The first question asked in this poll is the re-election query: Based solely on job performance, does President Obama deserve to be re-elected? Obama loses this question — which gets asked before the better off question or anything else — by 14 points. Even a majority of women (40/51) say no, and the exact same percentage occurs with the younger voter demo. Obama loses this by 29 points among independents (32/61). It’s a stunning, broad, and deep rejection of Obama’s first term as President, hardly an “incomplete.” And this is just two months before voters go to the polls to make this very choice.
This demonstrates the danger for Team Obama in running on their record. They cannot allow this election to be about Barack Obama and his agenda. They have to make it about Mitt Romney and how deeply scaaaaaaary Republicans are. That’s why Democrats dodged and weaved when asked the simple question that goes to the heart of voters’ decisions in presidential elections, especially when incumbents ask for a second term. To answer this at all, either positively or negatively, turns the election into a referendum on Obama — a report card, if you will — which will inevitably lead to Obama flunking his final exam.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Monday, September 3, 2012
Inspiring but Not Slick, Romney Showed Right Stuff.
Written By : Michael Barone
September 3, 2012
The 40th Republican National Convention is now history, and political strategists and pundits are poring over the poll numbers to see whether Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are getting a post-convention bounce in what have been very closely divided polls.
Romney’s convention managers made some correct and some interesting decisions. First, don’t relitigate 2008, as some conservatives would love to do.
Romney and Ryan both acknowledged the hopes for change motivating so many erstwhile Barack Obama voters. They looked back on his record in office more in sorrow than in anger.
Former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis eloquently described his own disenchantment with the president. You can see why they didn’t want to air a minute of his talk on MSNBC. It would have undercut the cable channel’s relentless narrative that Republicans are racists.
There was a special callout to young voters, who went 66 to 32 percent for Obama last time, when Ryan talked of twenty-somethings in their childhood bedrooms, “staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life. “
And there was a reach-out to the unquantifiable but undoubtedly large number of voters who feel that it would be a bad thing for Americans to be seen rejecting the first black president.
That’s the one reason I can think of for why the Romney people made the otherwise puzzling decision to put on Clint Eastwood at 10:00 Eastern, when the broadcast networks began their hour of coverage. It’s summed up in one sentence: “And when somebody does not do the job, we got to let them go.”
This was not as tightly scripted a convention as the George W. Bush or Bill Clinton conventions. Eastwood spoke without a teleprompter and so, very effectively, did Condoleezza Rice.
In back-to-back speeches, Ann Romney talked about “love” and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said that respect was more important than love. That seemed dissonant.
Actually, the two themes are reconcilable. A leader acts out of love for the people but, as Machiavelli taught, prefers to be feared than loved.
But slicker convention management would have rewritten one of the texts. The Romney folks left interpretation to a mostly hostile press and, they hope, a more sympathetic public.
I suspect the point was not to seem slick. Romney has a cool demeanor, and the convention was a device to humanize him. He and his wife described their personal lives in ways that resemble those of almost everyone. The kids roughhousing, the misfortunes that come sooner or later: They may have more money, but their lives are like those of lots of people.
The testimony of fellow church members about the Romneys’ service and caring was genuinely moving, recounted by people who are the opposite of slick. The convention floor was almost silent as they spoke, and we’ll see them again in TV ads.
The point is that the Romneys contributed something that is in short supply even among the very rich: time.
The convention also addressed concerns that have undoubtedly surfaced in focus groups. Yes, the candidate is open to women taking a lead role, as they have on his staff.
Yes, the candidate did help create businesses that employ tens of thousands and provide goods and services that people found they needed. Yes, Republicans care about education, and education choice, so that disadvantaged children have a chance to move upward.
Romney made that point in his speech, and it was underlined earlier in the evening by Jeb Bush, an extraordinarily successful governor and a politician whose behind-the-scenes support at crucial moments made possible the national career of the man who introduced Romney, Sen. Marco Rubio.
Coming off the convention floor, I heard raves about Romney’s speech from rank-and-file delegates and limited praise from those more experienced. Not spectacular, they said, but good enough.
That’s actually high praise. Democrats like their presidential candidates to be philosopher kings. They must be not only competent, but intellectually dazzling and oratorically thrilling.
Republicans have more modest ambitions. They see politicians as tools — and are satisfied if they are good enough to do the job.
Mitt Romney in selecting Paul Ryan, in staging an inspiring rather than slick convention and in delivering his acceptance speech, convinced Republicans in the hall and around the nation, and probably many undecideds, that he is a more than sufficient tool to do the job.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Documentary on Obama a Balancing Act
Written By : Debra Saunders
September 2, 2012
TAMPA, Fla. — You could say that the film “2016: Obama’s America” is the GOP equivalent of Michael Moore’s “Roger and Me.” The documentary is based on conservative firebrand Dinesh D’Souza’s 2010 book, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage.” As the film’s narrator, D’Souza argues that Barack Obama’s philosophy is “anti-colonialist,” a legacy passed on from his Kenyan father, who left Obama’s family when he was 2 years old.
I watched “2016″ with the California delegation at the 2012 Republican National Convention on Monday when the confab was delayed because of Hurricane Isaac. And I was surprised to see former U.S. Comptroller David Walker hitting Obama for deficit spending. Walker, you see, takes pains to come across as a fiscal hawk who criticizes both parties for bad fiscal stewardship. So he was about the last person I expected to see in a movie that some Democrats dismiss as a smear job.
I saw Walker in the Tampa Bay Times Forum on Wednesday night; he also plans to spend time at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C. “I am in ’2016,’ and I’m comfortable with what I said in ’2016,’” Walker told me. “But when I originally agreed to be in that documentary, I was told it was going to be nonpartisan, nonideological and nonpersonal. Let’s just say that I don’t think it meets the criteria.” Walker told me that he asked to be left out of the marketing of the movie. He said of D’Souza’s labeling Obama as “anti-colonialist,” “I don’t know whether he is or not.” Count me in on that, too.
D’Souza starts the film discussing the ways in which he and Obama are similar. They both are mixed-race, are Ivy League graduates who were born in 1961, matriculated in 1983 and married in 1992. But D’Souza is conservative, and Obama is liberal. Why? D’Souza travels the globe as he contends that Obama’s father’s anti-colonial politics were embraced by and passed on by Obama’s mother.
Even if D’Souza could nail that argument — and he didn’t — who cares? The documentary was a big hit with GOP delegates, however, for a reason. This year, the media have over-vetted Mitt Romney’s personal life. Think of the many stories of the dog’s being put in a crate on the Romney car roof in 1983, Romney’s prep-school behavior and his actions as a leader in the Mormon church.
But in 2008, the media glossed over Obama’s ties with former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers, “God <snip> America” pastor Jeremiah Wright and an African-American mentor whom Obama simply calls Frank in his memoirs, “Dreams from My Father.” It turns out Frank is Frank Marshall Davis, a well-known Communist. D’Souza calls Davis one of Obama’s ideological “Founding Fathers.”
Why wasn’t Davis more of an issue during the 2008 campaign? Slate’s David Weigel recently wrote, “Davis was an avowed Communist, and the media of 2008 didn’t care.”
“There’s been a veil placed over him,” producer Jerry Molen told me. Why did the Oscar-winning producer of “Rain Man” and “Schindler’s List” make a movie that’s critical of Obama? He told me he got angry over the lack of transparency in the administration’s handling of the Affordable Care Act. And he’s angry at what he sees as the media’s failure to adequately vet Obama in 2008 or hold Obama to the same standards reserved for GOP hopefuls.
“I’m a bit disappointed in the mainstream media,” Molen said. “They’ve fallen down on their job, or they have an agenda.”
“2016″ packages failed promises by the administration — and that’s why California delegates were so enthusiastic about the film. Delegate Jan Goldsmith, the San Diego city attorney, saw the film and was satisfied.
“I’m glad to see that this information is getting out,” he told me.
Other delegates saw the documentary as balancing the scales. Walker agrees. He told me that though he thinks the “anti-colonialist” emphasis was too personal, he appreciates that the film is not “a birther kind of thing.” D’Souza does care about facts. “2016″ flatly stipulates that Obama was born in a Hawaii hospital.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Team Obama Tries To Spin Away What "Hope And Change" Means
Written By : William Teach
September 2, 2012
At least in terms of when he was stating that he would bring a new era of “post-partisan” politics
(Washington Post) On the January night in 2008 when he won the Iowa caucuses, Barack Obama delivered a victory speech that would reverberate forcefully across a divided America. Iowans, he said, had come together — Democrats, Republicans and independents — to stand as one in calling for a new politics of unity and hope. It was a message that would help carry him to the White House 10 months later.
“You said the time has come to move beyond the bitterness and pettiness and anger that’s consumed Washington,” the then-senator from Illinois said that winter night in Des Moines. “To end the political strategy that’s been all about division and instead make it about addition. To build a coalition for change that stretches through red states and blue states. We are choosing hope over fear. We’re choosing unity over division and sending a powerful message that change is coming to America.”
Today Obama’s words sound quaint, even naive.
Not sure about quaint or naive. It sounded silly back in 2008. Today, they sound foolish and a load of mule fritters. Which is what Conservatives said they were back in 2008, since Obama had no history of reaching across party aisles and listening, nor any experience leading. Obama is the guy who is suddenly promoted at the store for being a good ass kisser and immediately becomes a tin pot dictator among the people he used to work with.
Instead of bipartisanship, there is polarization as deep as it has been in modern times. Instead of cooperation, there is confrontation. Instead of civility, there is rudeness. The political system seems frozen and more resistant to compromise than ever. Two months before the 2012 election, the campaign has become an all-or-nothing battle over the future direction of the country.
There’s nothing really unusual about what is going on in Washington. Heck, politicians actually used to duel. With guns and swords. Politics has always been nasty, and always will be. Of course, Obama was the guy saying he would bring about an era of kumbaya in Washington
White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said there has been a misunderstanding of just what Obama was talking about in 2008 when he called for a new politics.
“The president didn’t promise an era of kumbaya politics in which everyone agreed,” he said. “The primary thing he talked most about was that politicians too often ran from big problems that had haunted our country for decades. Whether folks like it or not, he did jump in and take on very big problems with full knowledge that they would have political consequences for him.”
See? You idiots just misunderstood what Obama was saying. He didn’t really mean that there would be a new tone in Washington, that he would be “post-partisan”, that he would try for cooperation, no, he meant he would…..ram legislation through the Democrat controlled Congress? Um, that’s what Republicans accused him of doing.
A good chunk of the Washington Post story is about attempting to blame Republicans, but, really, can anyone point to how Obama attempting to be a leader and reach across the aisle? Sure, a few serious squishes like Olympia Snowe might, but, this is the guy who said “I won” and then rammed through his policies. He’s been combative, abusive, and always blamestorms. Obama chose far left policies over what the American People wanted. Both the Stimulus and ObamaCare, among others, were highly unpopular before they passed, and didn’t get any more popular after being passed. It wasn’t just Republicans in Washington Obama was giving the middle finger: it was the American People.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Obama Says Republican Voters "Often Agree With Me" heh,heh.
Written By : William Teach
September 1, 2012
Oh, really?
(Daily Caller) Obama was asked, “So how are you going to talk to Republicans differently if you are reelected?”
“Republican voters, if you ask them about my particular policy positions, often agree with me. So there’s a difference between Republicans in Washington and Republican and Republican-leaning voters around the country,” Obama said in a Parade Magazine reader question-and-answer session published on Friday.
“I think that after this election, we’ll be in a position to once again reach out to Republicans and say that the American people have rendered a judgment, and the positions we’re taking are well within what used to be considered bipartisan centrist approaches.”
Yet another hard hitting interview in a fluff magazine. Anyhow,
“My approach has been pretty consistent from the start; I’ve often proposed ways to solve our problems that used to be embraced by Republicans. There’s no better example than the health care bill, which was designed originally by the now Republican standard-bearer and is working pretty well in Massachusetts,” he responded.
Most Republicans do not agree with the law itself and still have a problem with it, but understand that this is the kind of thing a Republican does in a liberals state like Massachusetts, and that this is Federalism, ie, state’s rights.
“The Recovery Act that helped us avoid a depression, a third of it was tax cuts. My hope is that the Republican Party, post election, steps back and says, ‘Now that we’re not so worried about beating the president, maybe we should spend a little time focusing on solving the problems.’”
Yes, we support tax cuts. But, the importance is not the policy but how it is implemented. Did those “tax cuts” work? Did they stimulate? At this point, that policy can be given a resounding “NO!” It was simply a change in the tax code which reduced the paycheck withholding and reduced the amount of money going into the social security trust fund. All for about $8 a week.
Surely, there are some policies we agree with him on: I like that he seems to enjoy launching strikes against jihadis (which would have gotten President Bush excoriated by the Left and liberal media). I like that he stayed with President Bush’s timeline to get out of Iraq (though Obama took full credit for it, and probably used Bush’s timeline because Obama is lazy). Otherwise, what else is there? I can’t think of one other policy I agree with. I’m sure there are a few. We probably see eye to eye on some environmental issues. But, the thing is, it’s not always about policy, it’s often about implementation. Short term “tax cuts” do not work. Short term fixes usually do not even provide short term relief.
He also called Obamacare one of his proudest achievements. Hence, he lost the House of Representatives in a historic blowout.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Banning Abortion Is Now, Apparently, Racism
Written By : William Teach
September 1, 2012
It was only a matter of time before some uber-leftist linked abortion (which is apparently the primary focus of the DNC) with raaaaacism. In this case, it’s Brian Fung at the Atlantic
The Quiet Racism of Abortion Bans
Like prohibitions on other goods and services, an abortion ban of the kind national conservatives propose would take a disproportionate toll on those least equipped to adapt, and would advance little but ideology.
As national Republicans in Tampa consider adding have added a ban on abortions as an official plank in their party platform — a proposal whose draft language is so severe, it doesn’t make exceptions for cases of rape or incest — liberal commentators have grown accustomed to speaking of the right’s strict stance on reproductive issues as a war on women. But it might be more accurate to say that it’s really an attack on women of a specific stripe: those from disadvantaged minorities and the poor.
Except, the position does make exceptions for rape and incest. But, hey, Brian (who’ll never have to get an abortion himself) has a narrative! Here’s his conclusion
But whatever you make of those topline numbers, one thing seems certain: an abortion ban would disproportionately affect women from non-white and low-income backgrounds.
Right. You caught us, Brian. That’s exactly what the GOP is attempting to do, to make sure there are more Black, Latino, and other minority children not being aborted so that the country will have more Black, Latino, and other minorities because we hate Blacks, Latinos, and other minorities. I find myself rubbing my forehead after writing that, considering what Liberals feel are their deep policy positions.
If anything, pushing for more abortion on demand is racist. Consider that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger was an avowed racist pushing eugenics to reduce the population of Blacks, other minorities, and “defectives.” She spoke in front of the KKK.
Abortion is also a sexist position of the Democrat Party, as they see to think that this is the main concern of women.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
A 'Lie': A Truth That Democrats Don't Like
A ‘LIE’: A TRUTH THAT DEMOCRATS DON’T LIKE
By: David Harsanyi
8/30/2012 11:06 AM
Or as DG Myers tweeted, “at least, a contestable proposition they are too lazy to contest.”
Democrats are energetically attempting to create the perception that Republicans — specifically, Paul Ryan — are running around Tampa making stuff up about Barack Obama (as if that’s necessary). And when I say Democrats, as regrettably cliché as it may sound, I also mean the mainstream media.
The following assertions, for instance, are true:
- Obama did cut over $700 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare.
- The stimulus was a case of political patronage, corporate welfare and cronyism.
- The Janesville, General Motors plant was closed down under Obama (though Ryan made a more nuanced assertion that we’ll cover below)
- Obama did blow off the bipartisan debt commission.
- Obama’s waivers do allow for the relaxing of work requirements in welfare reform.
Do some Republican speakers use politically hyperbolic rhetoric on occasion to attack the president on these points? No doubt. Are some of the accusers hypocrites. Sure. Is any of this out of line with traditional political campaign rhetoric? Hardly.
You expect advocates of the president to flail away after Ryan’s highly effective speech. The New Republic asks: “The Most Dishonest Convention Speech … Ever?” “At least five times,” Jonathan Cohn writes, “Ryan misrepresented the facts.” He then goes on to list five irrefutable facts that he finds ideologically distressing. Joan Walsh of MSNBC and Salon also writes of “Paul Ryan’s brazen lies,” as is her fact-challenged way, failing to offer one. Michael Tomasky claims Ryan’s speech was a “Web of Lies” but isn’t kind enough to find one for his column.
But take this Associated Press piece that is, no doubt, being run across the country: “FACT CHECK: Ryan Takes Factual Shortcuts in Speech.”
You know what’s funny about this piece? Not a single item highlighted is a factual shortcut or an untruth. They are simply items that put the president in a bad light. Now, some conclusions Ryan comes to might be contestable or they may make Ryan look like a hypocrite, but none of them are inaccurate.
The “post-truth” age, which James Fallows of the Atlantic refers to, is thriving among Democrats who’ve forsaken debate and have gone into the business by asserting that inconvenient truths are “lies” and using that assertion as a baseline for any debate that follows. Just read Fallows’ piece for evidence.
Take the “You didn’t build that” theme that the convention speakers have been focusing on. Quoting Obama verbatim is, apparently, a lie. I would argue that the context of Obama’s speech — one that refreshes Elizabeth Warren’s ode to a state-controlled economy — confirms what Republicans think he meant. Now, I concede that this is a disputable assertion, but it is not a lie. Yet, read someone like Glenn Kessler, “factchecker” at The Washington Post, twisting himself into knots trying to convince you that the president didn’t say what he said.
“The key question is whether “that” refers to “roads and bridges” — as the Obama campaign contends — or to a business. Yes, it’s a bit of a judgment call, but the clincher for us was Obama’s concluding line: “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
Why is that the “key question”? And even if it were, how can a self-professed broker of the truth give Two Pinocchios to the GOP when he himself acknowledges that it’s a “a bit of judgment call”? Kessler is the same factchecker who gave Republican groups knocking Obama for not visiting Israel Two Pinocchios, as well. You realize, I’m sure, that it is an indisputable fact that the president has not visited Israel, but Kessler was unimpressed by the ads.
Another alleged lie of Ryan’s is his contention that Obama had presided over the closing of a Janesville GM plant. Here’s what Ryan said:
Especially in Janesville where we were about to lose a major factory. A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that G.M. plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said, “I believe that if our government is there to support you, this plant will be here for another 100 years.
That’s what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day.
Politifact — the most dishonest of the so-called factcheckers — says this claim is false. Why? “Actually, the plant closed before he even took office,” says the site.
Actually, it did not, as my colleague John Hayward explains in detail. Moreover, when you read the speech you see that Ryan was saying, not so much that Obama was at fault for the closing of the plant, but that his campaign was one of broken promises and false hope.
Ryan is making an argument about the president’s vision and failed promises. With Obama’s record, that’s a tough debate to have for Democrats. So rather than engaging in it, they are often pretending that the parameters of the debate are unfair or that issues on the table are untrue. I doubt that that can work this time around.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
The One Line To Rule Them All
THE ONE LINE TO RULE THEM ALL
I generally agree with Scott that Romney’s speech could have been a lot stronger, and still had the same personal structure and done what he wanted to do with it. Who are his chief speechwriters, I wonder? Is it the same crew (McConnell and Scully) that did Paul Ryan’s speech? Of course, much of Ryan’s speech is harmonious with, and drawn from, Ryan’s many previous speeches, which adapted easily for the rhetorical requirements of the national convention stage. So it was easier to do for both the writers and for Ryan. Romney’s speech could have, but didn’t, solve a long-standing Romney problem: what does he believe? He’s still never given the equivalent of Reagan’s “Speech” (usually rendered ‘The Speech”—always capitalized) that lets us know what this guy is all about.
There was, however, one important turn of phrase that crystalizes the essential difference between Left and Right—between Obama and himself—that should give confidence that, if elected, Romney will be a decent president. And it could provide the razor that cuts Obama down to size in the fall campaign. It was this:
President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. MY promise . . . is to help you and your family.
This line obviously scored by the Left’s reaction to it. The clot on Chris Matthews’ leg grew bigger still as he complained that Romney was making light of climate change, and other greenies have expressed similar outrage. But the contrast set up in this line is not about climate change per se—it’s about the grandiosity of liberalism today, whose overweening pretentiousness has seldom found better expression than Obama (though Walter Mondale professing himself a candidate of “the sad” in 1984 comes close, as George Will reminded usthe other day).
Liberalism today is all about solving cosmic issues like global warming and “social justice”—which is why liberals like large, heavily politicized, programmatic “solutions” for everything. As has been often said, liberals love The People, but don’t like real people, as shown by the fact, detailed in yet another recent study, that liberals give pitifully little to charity compared with conservatives. A liberal’s idea of charity is taking your money and funding a government program it. Actually helping an individual in need–well yuck, that thegovernment’s job don’t you know.
No wonder the Democratic Party has largely lost the working class vote; when real people hear Obama talk, King Canute-like, about halting the rise of the oceans and healing the planet, they get it that he doesn’t actually care much about them and their practical problems much at all. All the talk about creating new “green jobs” won’t cut it; ordinary citizens know better, even without the example of Solyndra. This doesn’t make the working class an automatic vote for Republicans, who have largely lost their voice on economic growth the last few years and strangely haven’t done a very good job of getting it back. But Romney has laid down a strong marker for thumping Obama if he can build on this point.