Thursday, September 20, 2012

The Truth About Romney's 47% Remark.

Liberals have been having a field day with Governor Romney's remarks about The 47%.

At the heart of it, they want voters to believe that Romney called 47% of Americans lazy sponges, and said he's written them off. Of course, he said no such thing but context doesn't matter where political points can be scored.

The 47% figure was part of a donor's question and it comes from reports that about 47% of Americans receive some kind of government benefit and pay no income Tax.

Liberal bloggers have taken to categorizing these 47% who don't pay taxes. They profile single parent families, hard working Americans who pay their mortgage on time and have a steady job. They point out that within that 47% are retirees who receive social security checks, or medicare benefits. Some of the 47% are even veterans who received aid to get a college education after serving on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The problem of course is that Romney is not talking about them. The basis of Romney's remark is that a platform of tax cuts and keeping taxes rates low doesn't hold much sway over people who receive benefits and pay nothing (or little) for them.

Liberals say that a President needs to be President for 100% of Americans, not just 53%. Implying that Romney essentially only cares about little more than half of the country's citizens.

In actuality, Romney's remarks were in reference to campaigning. He's acknowledging that there is a percentage of the American electorate that will vote for Obama no matter what Romney does or says (or Obama for that matter), and he's not going to expend resources trying to change their minds while there are others who have not yet decided.

It's the same for Obama. There is a part of the electorate that is simply never going to vote for him. It would be foolish for him to focus his resources on trying to win their votes.

The 47% in Romney's sound-bite is rhetorical shorthand for the people dependent upon government assistance for subsistence. Nothing more.

But liberals know this, and they also know that most Americans actually agree with Romney. It's why they're too frightened to share the video with their supporters.

For the record, I happen to believe that not everyone in the rhetorical 47% - those on food stamps, unemployment benefits, and other welfare recipients - want to be there. The Democrat party is trying to grow the dependency class, there's no doubt about that, but not everyone in that class wants to be there and I believe a good many of them will vote against Obama in November.

We shall see.

Romney's original remarks (RSS Subscribers may have to read the post on the blog to view the video):

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Same Speeches. Same Promises. Are You Better Off?

President Obama gives his acceptance speech tonight and lays out his vision for the next four years, should we be unlucky enough for him to win reelection.

He cannot run on his record, so he will attempt to convince voters he has not been President for the last four years. Of course, not everyone will fall for this bait-and-switch tactic, so he will have to convince those who know good and well that he is the incumbent and not the agent of change that his agenda was held hostage by evil right-wing extremists seeking to restore government to its proper size and scope, and force it to live within its means.

Leaving aside obvious implications of his lack of leadership evident in his failure and unwillingness to compromise, I think it's important to remember that his reelection campaign consists largely of the same speeches and the same broken promises.

All of his attempts are meant to keep you from considering the question:

Are You Better Off?

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Best of National Empty Chair Day

Clint Eastwood sparked an internet sensation with his offbeat debate with an empty chair at the 2012 Republican National Convention last week.

Eastwood's "dialog" with an empty chair led to National Empty Chair Day - where thousands of photographs showing an empty chair as a metaphor for Obama.

Here are my picks for the best of 'National Empty Chair Day'

Obama sitting in front of his flagship alternative energy investment.

Obama taking a break from a round of golf for a beer summit

Obama's Jobs Council. Very diverse...

In the end, Empty Chair Day was an extension of Eastwood's inspired improv speech which only provided a visual focal point for what many Americans already knew - Obama is an empty suit. His words are just words and carry no weight or significance because his actions undermine them at every turn.

At last, the REAL Obama.

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Democratic National Convention 2012 Schedule

I have been sent a leaked copy of the "Democratic National Convention 2012 Schedule" from a friend, and I thought I'd share it with you here today.

2012 Democratic National Convention Schedule -- Charlotte , N.C.

4:00 PM - Opening Flag Burning Ceremony - sponsored by CNN
4:05 PM - Singing of "God Damn America " led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright
4:10 PM - Pledge of Allegiance to Obama

4:15 PM - Ceremonial 'I hate America' led by Michelle Obama
4:30 PM - Tips on "How to keep your man trustworthy & true to you while you travel the world" - Hillary Clinton
4:45 PM -Al Sharpton / Jesse Jackson seminar "How to have a successful career without having a job."

5:00 PM - "Great Vacations I've Taken on the Taxpayer's Dime Travel Log" - Michelle Obama
5:30 PM - Eliot Spitzer Speaks on "Family Values" via Satellite
5:45 PM - Tribute to All 57 States - Nancy Pelosi

6:00 PM - Sen. Harry Reid - 90-minute speech expressing the Democrat's appreciation of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and George Soros for sparing no expense, for all that they have accomplished to unify the country, improve employment and to boost the economy.

8:30 PM - Airing of Grievances by the Clintons
9:00 PM - "Bias in Media - How we can make it work for you" Tutorial - sponsored by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times

9:15 PM - Tribute Film to Brave Freedom Fighters incarcerated at GITMO - Michael Moore
9:45 PM - Personal Finance Seminar - Charlie Rangle
10:00 PM - Denunciation of Bitter Gun Owners and Bible readers
10:30 PM - Ceremonial Waving of White Flag for IRAQ , & Afghanistan
11:00 PM - Obama Energy Plan Symposium / Tire Gauge Demonstration / You too can get rich with Green Investment bankruptcies
11:15 PM - Free Gov. Blagovich rally

11:30 PM - Obama Accepts Oscar, Tony and Latin Grammy Awards
11:45 PM - Feeding of the Delegates with 5 Loaves and 2 Fish - Obama Presiding
12:00 AM - Official Nomination of Obama by Bill Maher and Chris "He sends a thrill up my leg" Matthews

12:01 AM - Obama Accepts Nomination as Lord and Savior
12:05 AM - Celestial Choirs Sing
3:00 AM - Biden Delivers Acceptance Speech

Monday, August 27, 2012

What Does Romney's 'Firestorm' Birth Certificate Joke Reveal About Obama?

You've no doubt heard that Mitt Romney has "raised the birther issue again" in this campaign.

In fact, some PBS stations are even calling it a "Despicable Birther Joke" and asking to raise questions of Romney's faith in retaliation. (One wonders what PBS thinks of truly despicable insinuations by Obama's staff and PACs. Such as the infamous Romney responsible for cancer death ad).

(For point of reference, here is that 'despicable' joke in its entirety)

Romney was speaking to a crowd of several thousand people in his home state of Michigan. Here's the transcript:

"I love being home in this place where Ann and I were raised, where both of us were born. Ann was born in Henry Ford Hospital. I was born in Harper Hospital," Romney said. "No one's ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that we were born and raised."

It didn't take long for the legacy media to get the memo, and they all started "framing" the "narrative" (is there any journalism left out there?) as a "firestorm".

Consider Romney birth certificate remark sets off firestorm - , from the Political Hotsheet at cBS News

The only problem is that Mitt Romney has always taken pains to state that he believes the president was born in the United States.

Romney was making a joke while delivering what is an otherwise perfunctory statement delivered by all politicians, the "it's great to be back" segment of the campaign speech.

So why such a knee-jerk reaction to Romney's joke?

it strikes me that there are 2 general explanations for the media reaction:

  1. The Obamites are really touchy about the subject of his past in general, and his birthplace in particular.
  2. Obama supporters are desperate to change focus and tarnish Romney, and since the "he's rich = he's evil" narrative only plays well to the Occupy idiots, they hope to strike at middle America and convince them that Romney is some fringe birther nutjob.

I don't know if there's anything about Obama's birth or birth certificate that warrants the kind of speculation it's received.

No need to go there..

Ultimately, I don't think Obama's place of birth matters because there's simply no reason to go there. Obama has a record, and it is one of failure.

whether you focus on the worst recovery in U.S. history, the largest and most unpopular expansion of government power that is Obamacare (not to mention the shady tactics used to pass it), the $831 billion slush fund erroneously called a "stimulus" bill, $6 trillion in new debt and record deficits as far as the eye can see; there are a host of arguments in the case against reelection that are simply much stronger arguments than Obama's birth certificate.

Basically, Obama's already proven himself to be a failure and generally bad for the country. Republicans should stick to that.

Friday, August 10, 2012

Is Media Setting Up Excuses For Obama's Loss In November?

Is it me, or is does it seem strange for the media and Obama to be drawing attention to the fact that he's being out-spent and out-done in fundraising?

After all, we're talking about Barack Obama who obliterated every political fundraising and spending record in U.S. history in 2008. Being outdone in 2012 is kind of like an admission of failure, isn't it?

I think it is.

I see two explanations for this admission:

  1. Team Obama is hoping to strike fear in the hearts of liberals in the hopes of spurring them to empty their savings to support their guy.
  2. The media is sowing the seeds of excuse for his eventual (possible in their eyes) defeat come November.

Evidence of the first can be seen in recent MoveOn mailings. Incidentally, Team Obama also used his birthday as a fundraising event. If that isn't desperation, I don't know what is..

Evidence of the second point can be seen in various media articles that reference the fundraising gap. By way of example, I offer you: Money corrupts politics more than you realize- MSN Money.

Of course, articles like that never mention the corruption in giving tax payer funded "stimulus" money to Union backers by way of a sham bankruptcy (see: How the Obama Auto Bailout Screwed Taxpayers and Paid Off Unions )

The purpose of this recent media blitz is to pave the way for such slogans as:

"Romney and the Koch brothers bought the election"

The background message to all of this is: "money, money, money." which will lead the left to recycle calls for campaign finance reform.

It will be used to distract the population from the obvious cause of Obama's loss: rejection of liberal policies.

They will not admit that defeat.

They will blame "messaging" and "big money," but they will not question their own failure.

The truth is that it will be Obama's record of stewardship that will sink his re-election effort:

 Come November, Obama will be seen as what he is - just another big government failure.

Obama - Big Government Failure

Thursday, August 9, 2012

MoveOn: We're Getting Beat!

Panic on the left?

I'll let you decide.

Here's a copy of a recent email from the liberal kooks at MoveOn:

Dear MoveOn member,

We're getting beat and it's time to wake up.

The unlimited money ushered in by Citizens Unitedmeans the right wing could outspend progressives 2 to 1 this election—and Romney's just out raised President Obama for the third straight month.

Congressional Republicans sabotaged our economic recovery by crashing the debt ceiling and blocking every jobs measure put forward by the president. Republican governors drastically cut jobs, offsetting private sector job gains. Now Romney is blaming Obama for high unemployment.

Republicans passed Jim Crow style voter suppression laws that will disenfranchise millions of progressive voters, targeting low income folks, people of color, and the young.

And the worst of it is—we're still asleep. Because despite all this, a Gallup Poll shows that Democrats are much less enthusiastic about voting than Republicans. That means we lose.

MoveOn members are 7 million strong. We have a proven record of creative, dynamic, and grassroots election campaigning. From launching the most talked about political ads to running the most inventive and effective voter contact programs, MoveOn can provide the shot in the arm that progressives need right now.

But to do that we need to double our number of "movement makers"—the members who make a regular monthly donation—from 15,000 to 30,000. Can you help join the wake up call?

In past elections MoveOn members funded one of the most covered political ads, for the least money, in history. We also produced one of the most effective voter contact programs ever studied. But with a torrent of 1% money being unleashed, we need to double the impact of our election plan:
Showing America that Mitt Romney is running for President of the 1% through creative ads and daring actions on the ground.

Fighting back against Republican voter suppression of the Rising American Electorate—the people of color, single women, and young people who helped elect President Obama in 2008.

Making calls, knocking on doors, and using innovative new technology to register and turn out as many progressive voters as humanly possible.
Just imagine taking everything we can do together and doubling it. That's what our goal of reaching 30,000 movement makers is all about. For a small regular donation each month you can become a MoveOn movement maker and make that happen.

Contributing to any cause or community of people, especially making a regular contribution, is an act of great trust and faith. Today you can place your faith in a community of 7 million fellow MoveOn members and trust that your contribution will help empower their passion, commitment, and energy.

Thanks for all you do.

Aside from their delusion about "Jim Crow style voter suppression laws" (the actual laws require voters to prove who they are, thus eliminating illegal voters and the dead . You can see why the Democrat party would be panicked), I especially liked the bit about "Congressional Republicans sabotaged our economic recovery..".

It's comical how backwards they are. At the same time it's frightening how many Americans actually believe such things.

Friday, June 1, 2012

Behold: The Obama Recovery in Action!

Ok, I'll admit - it's a snarky headline.

But come on. Who are these believers in the Obama Recovery? These hopium addicts must live on the D.C. beltway or have their hands in the stimulus/bailout cookie jar. There's no way an average American citizen with a brain buys this Recovery spin.

Consider the facts:

"– 1Q GDP was revised down to 1.9% from 2.2%. The previous four GDP quarters of Obama recovery: 0.4%, 1.3%, 1.8%, 3.0%. Keep in mind that research from the Federal Reserve finds that since 1947, when two-quarter annualized real GDP growth falls below 2 percent, recession follows within a year 48 percent of the time. (And when year-over-year real GDP growth falls below 2 percent, recession follows within a year 70 percent of the time.)" 

  • And I love this little gem (also from the link above):

"Meanwhile, the unemployment rate unexpectedly climbed to 8.2% from 8.1% the month before."

"Unexpectedly" ?!

Again, I ask who are these hopium addicts who thought the economy was turning around? Every point under Obama that the economy looked good, has turned out to be smoke and mirrors. Little more than artificial stimulus from bailouts, much like an adrenaline shot can yield a short term explosion of energy - but at a cost. And too many adrenaline shots (artificial stimulus) has detrimental effects.

Incidentally, for all you "fauxnews" idiots out there, here's the same news from AP, so it's not some grand Murdoch conspiracy.

So in honor of the stunning success of Obamanomics that we are all forced to live with (at least until November), I have created this T-Shirt:

Basic Economics for 2012. Recession: When your neighbor loses his job. Depression: When you lose your job. Recovery: When Barack Obama loses his job.

The front says:
Basic Economics for 2012.

Recession: When your neighbor loses his job.

Depression: When you lose your job.

Recovery: When Barack Obama loses his job.

That should clear things up for people.

Also, since it's a t-shirt I added this test to the back:

"The only shirt Obama doesn't want off my back"

The shirt can be purchased on Here on Zazzle.

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Is Obama Really Losing Women Voters?

There are a couple of tried and true methods for finding the truth in politics. One is to follow the money, but another less quoted technique is to follow a politicians actions and not his words.

For example, the Democrat party and their supporters in the press have made much ado about nothing in their recent attempts to manufacture a "republican war on women." It's simply the latest in their tactic to distract and divide Americans in an election year.

Democrats know they cannot win running on Obama's record of failure, so they hope to carve up the constituents - slice and dice the voting public - and use every method of distraction and pandering imaginable to pit one faction against another and pull out a modest victory in numbers, and not ideas.

My how far we've fallen from Hope and Change.

Recent polls have "shown" that Women Boost Obama Over Romney - a phenomenon they attribute to the Democrat party's "War on Women" slogan.

But here's where looking beyond the hype comes into play.

If the phony War on Women rhetoric was really working, and if it was true that women prefer Obama to Romney, 57- 38, why would Obama be pandering anew to this all so important slice of voters?

On May 14th, Obama gave a commencement address at Barnard College - an all-female school.

During his speech, Obama "focused on the achievements and challenges facing women". In fact, the word “Women” was mentioned more times than any other word in his speech - more than "America", "Jobs" and "work". Mind you, this is at a time when the economy, jobs and getting back to work are the most important issues to most Americans.

Does this make any sense for a candidate that, we are told, is annihilating his competition in the race to win women voters?

And at about the same time, Obama is courting women voters on The View.

This simply does not add up. When does a candidate pander so heavily to a voting bloc? When he knows he cannot count on their support being in hand.

The truth in this case is readily apparent: Don't buy the spin, Obama is in trouble and he knows it.

Friday, May 11, 2012

Obama's Evolution not what it Seems

President Obama recently "evolved" in his view of gay marriage, came out of.... his chrysalis, and seemingly supported it.

His use of the word "evolved" translates to "focus-grouped the best way to appear to support a politically controversial topic, while minimizes the fallout at the ballot box come November."

He knows that gay marriage has been voted down in 32 states, and the only time it's enacted into law is when legislators or judges impose it on the people. But he also knows that 20% of his bundlers (supporters who organize or donate $500,0000 or more to the campaign) are gay and were withholding their contributions until they saw more movement on their issues.

Obama's was simply being pragmatic for once. He was not proclaiming any great new realization on human rights, he was doing what he had to to get the campaign cash flowing once again.

At first glance, this seems gutsy though. After all, Obama narrowly won North Carolina in 2008, and the Democratic Party has made a repeat victory here a top priority. The party will hold its presidential convention in Charlotte in September - a state that became the most recent to shoot down gay marriage just 3 days prior to Obama's "big decision". One would think that would not play out in favor of a repeat victory in that prized state.

But if you look carefully at his statement, you'll see an escape hatch:

"PRESIDENT OBAMA: And I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what's recognized as a marriage."
- Obama on Gay Marriage: I Support it, and Support States Banning it

Obama considering states rights? That's a first.

His has been the most heavy-handed and overreaching administration in recent memory, but now all of a sudden he's content to let the states decide what should be law in this all so important issue of the day?

No, of course not. This is simply more "leading from behind." This is his fallback technique of appearing to be down for the struggle, while not actually doing anything to further the cause. His gay supporters think they heard support from the highest level of government, and they open up their purse strings. Meanwhile, Obama and company can claim to North Carolinians that he was merely expressing his opinion and has not enacted any legislation on the matter.

Time will tell how this will play out in the great election of 2012, but frankly I think it's more division and distraction than anything else.

My take on the matter is this: Get government out of the marriage business.

Problem solved. Everyone is treated equally in the eyes of the state. Marriages are considered civil unions by the state and couples get taxed and treated the same. Leave the covenant of marriage where it belongs - in the church.

But if we solve the problem, then there's one less wedge issue to divide and distract the voters come November, and without that the voters may focus on Obama's record.

Monday, May 7, 2012

Rush Limbaugh Advertisers Drop, Who Wins And Who Loses.

There's been a strong campaign of late by liberals to force Rush Limbaugh advertisers to drop their advertising on Limbaugh's show over his controversial comments on Sandra Fluke. I'm not going to argue one way or the other about his comments. I will say this, controversy is Limbaugh's medium, and anyone who engages him on this battlefield will lose.

All the talk about Rush's Fluke comments and the campaign to boycott advertisers has only increased his ratings. Thanks to the fools trying to sensationalize Limbaugh's comments, there are thousands of people who never gave him a listen who now tune him in to see what all the fuss is about. What liberals fail to recognize is that Rush Limbaugh is not running for election. He is a polarizing figure and generates strong feelings of dislike and all out hatred in some groups. But for every one of them there are 2-3 more with no preconceived notions who tune in for entertainment or a different perspective on politics of the day.

So who is losing in the war to boycott Rush Limbaugh ?

The left would have you believe it's Rush, but think again.

The idea behind boycotting Limbaugh's sponsors is to cut Limbaugh's advertising income - hit him where it hurts. This thinking is seriously flawed. It's flawed because of the effect outlined above - i.e. the controversy increases his audience.

It's also flawed because for every sponsor that does drop, there are 3 more waiting in the wings.

Think about it. The sponsors likely to fall victim to this kind of harassment are going to be big, national corporate sponsors worried about their image in a PC world. For every one of them, there are more smaller companies who can then get their foot in the door advertising at EIB.

As their sales revenue climbs, they'll be willing to pay the advertising fees without question.

Here's a simple example of the power of advertising on Rush Limbaugh's EIB network. I was listening to his show the week after the Sandra Fluke comments, prior to the organized campaign against his sponsors. He a caller on his show who purported to be Tom Grace, author of a new book, The Liberty Intrigue.

I quickly hit Amazon to check the current sales rank, saved a copy and went back 1 week later.

  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank at the time of Grace's call to Rush Limbaugh: #284,174
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank 1 week after the call: #23,787

That's pretty impressive. It's since dropped back down again, and at the time of this writing is #46,994.

The book was published at the start of the year, and the author called about 3 months later, so I doubt the sudden jump is sales was due to a promotional effort on the part of the publisher.

One more thing about the supposed list of Rush's Dropped Sponsors.. I'm not sure how many were really sponsors. I've seen a large number given in various places that I've never heard while listening to his show. Some are no doubt regional sponsors, but I have to question the accuracy of many lists as well as the claims of success on the part of the campaign organizers on the left.