My Closing Argument, and This Ain’t Just Rhetoric

Overview: My Main Philosophical Reason I’m Voting For Mitt.

I feel so strongly that Mitt Romney is the right choice for president that I wanted to make one last post, my closing argument as it were, in hopes of convincing that one last undecided voter out there somewhere to vote for Mitt. I wanted to explain why I, and the other authors here at Mitt Romney Central, have devoted such time, effort, emotion, and yes, money, to the cause of electing Mitt. My list of specific reasons why I like Mitt, and my counterarguments to President Obama’s case, are below. But I can sum up why I feel so strongly with this: Barack Obama’s vision for America is inconsistent with that of our founding fathers and our Constitution.

A Limited Government Preserves Freedom

Our government was founded on the principles of self-determination and freedom. Americans were not content to be told by the British government how much they should pay in taxes or what freedoms they were entitled to. So they fought a war to gain their independence. When the founding fathers then set up their own government, at the forefront of their minds was the concern for how to preserve their hard-won freedoms. So they came up with three fundamental ideas about the new federal government: (i) it should be small, split into different branches with checks and balances over each other’s power, (ii) it should share power with, and in fact have less power over citizens’ day-to-day lives than, the states, where the citizens were better represented, and (iii) our most basic freedoms should be enshrined in a Bill of Rights to make absolutely sure the federal government did not violate them. This combination of ideas, they thought, would assure, over time, that the God-given rights they had won back from their government at great cost would be preserved against tyranny.

Obama’s Vision of a Larger Government is Antithetical to Freedom.

In 2008 when Senator Obama talked of “transforming” America and saying “we can do better,” it was clear to me he was talking about fundamentally changing these key principles. He stood for a larger federal government; one that would try and take responsibility for the poor and do more for its citizens. While that may sound nice, having a government undertake that responsibility also means it must become larger, tax more (a government that undertakes to define what’s fair for all its citizens will also try and make everyone pay their “fair share”) and become more involved in our lives, much more involved than the founding fathers intended. A larger government necessarily becomes more difficult to manage, begins to take on a life of its own, and becomes very difficult to control. A larger federal government also means a shift in power from the states, where citizens can more easily control their own destiny. And once people begin to rely on government largesse, cutting the size of that government and its programs, even if the government cannot afford them (witness our overwhelming deficits and the troubles in Europe as it tries to cut back), becomes very, very difficult. People become less willing to give up that security, even if it means a loss of liberty. And they can become accustomed to the idea that the government represents someone else, not them, and that they are owed something by that government (witness appeals from the left that sound like class warfare). As a result, I believe the policies of President Obama reflect a threat to our liberty. Perhaps not immediate. Perhaps only a little. But what he wants to do, at its core, is inconsistent with the intended size and role of our government, which means we will inevitably lose a little, or a lot, of liberty. How much really depends on how much further down Obama’s road we go. And in my view, we’ve already lost too much.

Example: Obamacare.

As an illustration of what I mean, I’ll use Obamacare. It sounds nice to make sure everyone has health insurance. And there are lots of stories of people who can’t afford insurance, and how having it would benefit them greatly. I get that, and I feel for their situation. This is what Obama meant by “we can do better.” He’d like to use government resources to fix these problems. But, just like when you get your first credit card, you need to look beyond the nice things you can buy and decide whether you can really afford it, because that bill will come due at some time. As for the cost in dollars and cents, it’s clear we can’t afford Obamacare. We just can’t. It adds trillions of unfunded government outlays over the next two decades. And once these benefits are offered to citizens it’s very difficult to take them away. In addition, Obamacare has already begun to infringe on our freedoms. At its core it’s the federal government (not the state, which is the principal difference between Obamacare and Romneycare), forcing us to buy a product. Then, because it forces us to buy this product, it must go further and legislate the minimum requirements of this product (or everyone would buy the cheapest version available). That legislation now includes elements some religions find offensive. How’d we get here? By involving the federal government in something it really was never intended by the founding fathers to be involved in: providing health insurance. Further, because the IRS will be in charge of enforcing compliance with the mandate, it will need to know our personal health information. The founders’ vision of limited federal power, with express limits on what the federal government can and can’t do, has been violated by Obamacare. And having the federal government in this position simply poses a threat to our freedom. The founders knew power corrupts, and while we think we can trust the government now, we don’t always know we will be able to. When will it be your religious belief that’s infringed? Or your freedom of speech? This is why the Republicans resist President Obama so much. This is why Obamacare did not get one single Republican vote. This is why Obama’s own budget was rejected by not only Republicans but his own party. And finally this is why Mitch McConnell said it was his goal to make sure Obama only had one term: to try and make sure the damage President Obama does is not long-lasting. Obamacare is a threat to our freedom, and it’s just one example.

This Ain’t Just Rhetoric.

Let me say that this is not just rhetoric. I’m not just making an argument because I want you to vote for Mitt for some other hidden reason. This is why I’m voting for Mitt, and why I honestly believe everyone should. This is what worries me about the prospect of Obama serving another term. He has already made some strides toward “transforming” America into something I believe it was never intended to be. Obamacare was one very large step in that direction. As Vice President Biden said, it was a “[blanking] big deal.” I know the further we go down this road the more difficult it is to go back. I also know the GOP will fight Obama to preserve that liberty, which is likely to result in more gridlock at a time when our government needs to work together. Unfortunately, though, cooperating with the president can mean, and has meant, the loss of some of these liberties, which makes compromise difficult.
(more…)

Democrat Party Leaves Jewish Americans — Obama Leading from Behind

President Truman holds the Torah presented to him by Dr. Chaim Weizmann, the first president of Israel, May 25, 1948 (Photo: Bettmann Corbis)

Why are American Jews abandoning the Obama administration in such large ways lately? Following the news this year, you would never know that over 800 rockets and mortars were fired into Israel from the Gaza Strip? The WSJ weighed in yesterday with two op-eds on Israel. This first excerpt is from one entitled, Israel Under Fire:

If this incoming fire were landing in Texas from Mexico—or in southern Spain from North Africa—it would be a major story. Instead, the world has largely ignored the attacks while obsessing over a possible Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Iran is a principal arms supplier to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which operates out of Gaza and is responsible for many of the recent attacks. Iran’s war against Israel, in other words, has long been underway.

Could it be that President Obama simply does not care? That is my position. But hey, I’m not Jewish and I’m not the POTUS, so my opinion doesn’t really matter much at all. But a prominent Jewish American’s opinion matters. For those who don’t know this fact, Sheldon Adelson was a major contributor to the Gingrich campaign and later to Romney for their policy positions on the state of Israel. Mr. Adelson penned a great opinion piece in the Journal entitled, I Didn’t Leave the Democrats. They Left Me — Excerpts:

When members of the Democratic Party booed the inclusion of God and Jerusalem in their party platform this year, I thought of my parents.

They would have been astounded.

So why did I leave the party?

My critics nowadays like to claim it’s because I got wealthy or because I didn’t want to pay taxes or because of some other conservative caricature. No, the truth is the Democratic Party has changed in ways that no longer fit with someone of my upbringing.

One obvious example is the party’s new attitude toward Israel. A sobering Gallup poll from last March asked: “Are your sympathies more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians?” Barely 53% of Democrats chose Israel, the sole liberal democracy in the region. By contrast, an overwhelming 78% of Republicans sympathized with Israel.

Nowhere was this change in Democratic sympathies more evident than in the chilling reaction on the floor of the Democratic convention in September when the question of Israel’s capital came up for a vote. Anyone who witnessed the delegates’ angry screaming and fist-shaking could see that far more is going on in the Democratic Party than mere opposition to citing Jerusalem in their platform. There is now a visceral anti-Israel movement among rank-and-file Democrats, a disturbing development that my parents’ generation would not have ignored.

President Truman holds the Torah presented to him by Dr. Chaim Weizmann, the first president of Israel, May 25, 1948.

Another troubling change is that Democrats seem to have moved away from the immigrant values of my old neighborhood—in particular, individual charity and neighborliness. After studying tax data from the IRS, the nonpartisan Chronicle of Philanthropy recently reported that states that vote Republican are now far more generous to charities than those voting Democratic. In 2008, the seven least-generous states all voted for President Obama. My father, who kept a charity box for the poor in our house, would have frowned on this fact about modern Democrats.

Take, for example, President Obama’s adopted home state. In October, a nonpartisan study of Illinois’s finances by the State Budget Crisis Task Force offered painful evidence that liberal Illinois is suffering from abject economic, demographic and social decline. With the worst credit rating in the country, and with the second-biggest public debt per capita, the Prairie State “has been doing back flips on a high wire, without a net,” according to the report.

Political scientist Walter Russell Mead summed up the sad results of these findings at The American Interest: “Illinois politicians, including the present president of the United States, have wrecked one of the country’s potentially most prosperous and dynamic states, condemned millions of poor children to substandard education, failed to maintain vital infrastructure, choked business development and growth through unsustainable tax and regulatory policies—and still failed to appease the demands of the public sector unions and fee-seeking Wall Street crony capitalists who make billions off the state’s distress.”

At times, it seems almost as if President Obama wants to impose the failed Illinois model on the whole country. Each year of his presidency has produced unsustainable deficits, and he takes no responsibility for his spending.

Whenever President Obama deplores the wealthy (“fat-cat bankers,” “millionaires and billionaires,” “at a certain point you’ve made enough money,” and so on), it tells me that he has failed to learn the economic lessons of Illinois, and that he still doesn’t understand the vital role entrepreneurs play in creating jobs in our society.

As a person who has been able to rise from poverty to affluence, and who has created jobs and work benefits for tens of thousands of families, I feel obligated to speak up and support the American ideals I grew up with—charity, self-reliance, accountability. These are the age-old virtues that help make our communities prosperous. Yet, sadly, the Democratic Party no longer seems to value them as it once did. That’s why I switched parties, and why I’m now giving amply to Republicans.

Although I don’t agree with every Republican position—I’m liberal on several social issues—there is enough common cause with the party for me to know I’ve made the right choice.

It’s the choice that, I believe, my old immigrant Jewish neighbors would have made. They would not have let a few disagreements with Republicans void the importance of siding with the political party that better supports liberal democracies like Israel, the party that better exemplifies the spirit of charity, and the party with economic policies that would certainly be better for those Americans now looking for work.

The Democratic Party just isn’t what it used to be.
[emphasis added]


American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist – Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families

Democrat & Former Clinton Aide Endorses Romney, Rips Obama

Post-debate analysis in October gave Mitt Romney high marks for his descriptions of bipartisan work as governor and for his promises of bridging the divide created by President Obama who rarely meets with members of Congress now.

Gigi Georges (Photo: From Linkedin public profile)

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton’s former Senate state director, Gigi Georges gave a strong endorsement of Governor Romney. Another Democrat crosses the line to run from Barack Obama. Her endorsement also carries a terse rebuke of President Obama as a failure:

“For most of my life, I’ve been an active Democrat,” said Gigi Georges. “I am proud to have worked for President Bill Clinton and then-Senator Hillary Clinton, and, during that time, I saw firsthand what can be accomplished by strong, bipartisan leadership. I know what it means to work across the aisle on issues that are important to the American people. And that’s why I am supporting Mitt Romney. Governor Romney has a plan to restore the prosperity this country deserves and expects. He will work with people of good will no matter what their party, and he will pursue the policies that are in the best interest of our country, no matter who proposes them. That’s what President Obama promised to do four years ago. But like so many of his promises, bipartisan cooperation is just another one he has broken. We can’t have four more years of failed policies and two parties that can’t work together. We need the change Mitt Romney is offering.”

Governor Romney gave a brief statement in a press release when he announced Ms. Georges’ endorsement. Also, this website wrote this of her: “Apparently she is not aware of Romney’s War on Women.”

Photographer Unknown

For Ms. Georges’ bio, click here

New Gallup Poll Should Have Chicago Sweating…Profusely

SPOILER ALERT: In this post I’ll tell you why polls are looking very good for Mitt, but will also conclude by saying it only matters if we all dig in, do our part to get out the vote. So click the “ComMITTed” link!

I’ve now seen three commentaries on the latest Gallup poll, and they’re telling a consistent story: Chigago is, or should be, sweating profusely about these latest polling numbers. And the evidence is they are.

The Eye Candy: National Polls.

National polls are great and continue to give encouraging news of a Mitt 2-4% lead. The RealClearPolitics average of polls gives Mitt a solid 1% edge. The latest poll in that group, a Rasmussen poll of 1,500 likely voters from October 25 to October 27 (yesterday), gives Mitt a 3% lead. The underlying data show Mitt is winning more Republicans (90%) than Obama is Democrats (85%), but the big news on the national front is that Mitt is leading among independents by 11%. But national polls are really the eye candy of the presidential politics. Fun to look at, but in the end, not what will make the difference.

Where the Rubber Meets the Road: State Polls

What’s really important, as we all know, is what happens in the electoral college. So what about those swing states? Well, there’s good news there, too, even if there’s lots of work to be done. Rasmussen’s electoral college map, based on Rasmussen’s own polling in each state, shows Mitt leading or tied in the critical swing states of Florida (50%/48%), Virginia (50%/47%), Colorado (50%/46%), Iowa (48%/48%), New Hampshire (50%/48%), Wisconsin (49%/49%) and, perhaps most importantly, Ohio (48%/48%). Given Mitt was behind in these states a couple weeks ago, and the press’ coronation of Obama as the narrow winner of the last two debates, the trends here are in the right direction: Mitt is gaining when it counts, and Mitt has an ability to improve, while Obama, who the voters have known for four years, is more likely to drop. Other states are also narrowing: Minnesota and Pennsylvania are closer than expected, if still leaning Obama. And no one thought Wisconsin would be tied a few weeks ago. If you don’t like Rasmussen’s numbers, you can turn to RealClearPolitics’ collection of polls and resulting electoral college map. RCP reports similar numbers for each of those states. It shows Virginia, Colorado and New Hampshire in a closer race, with Obama having a slight lead in Iowa, Wisconsin and Ohio, with Mitt continuing to make inroads.

So national and state polling shows it’s a very close race, Obama has a miniscule and shrinking lead in states he needs to win, and Mitt is either tied or within easy striking distance in all the same states. Very encouraging for a challenger.

But…there’s more.

The Zinger: the Latest Gallup Poll

The real story is that Gallup poll. Neil Stevens of Red State dissects Gallup’s numbers and says:

We always talk about the independent, swing vote in elections because those tend to be the persuadables. But party ID numbers matter as well, because those partisan voters tend to split better than 90/10 for their party.

It is for that reason that Gallup’s new partisan ID split, one that mimics what Rasmussen has been saying all along, predicts nothing less than doom for the Democrats, and a solid, national win for Mitt Romney this year.

…the numbers are brutal. In 2008, the Democrats had a 39-29 (D+10) advantage in hard party ID, and a 54-42 (D+12) advantage with leaners. In 2012 though, we’re in the post-TEA party era. Republicans now show a 36-35 (R+1) hard party ID advantage, and a 49-46 (R+3) lead with leaners. This gives us a range of party ID swings from 2008, from R+11 to R+15.

[Emphasis added.]

What does this mean? In a tight election with key swing states on the edge and voter turnout key, more of those voters self-identifying as Republicans than Democrats this year means things may be better than they look on the surface of the polls. Mr. Stevens then goes further and says what these numbers would mean if plugged into his own electoral college model. It generates an estimate of the electoral college results if more voters self-ID as Republican versus his baseline year. Here’s the picture:


(more…)

Des Moines Register Ends Democrat Trend, Endorses Mitt Romney!

October 9, 2012 – Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is pictured at a chilly campaign rally in Van Meter, Iowa. Later, seeking the endorsement of the Des Moines Register, he met for an hour with their editorial board in the barn pictured behind him. After 18 days of consideration, the Iowa newspaper today announced their endorsement for Romney. (Photo – Getty)

For the first time in 40 years…

Rupturing a decades long booster club habit of backing Democrat nominees for president, the Des Moines Register, today endorsed Governor Mitt Romney.

Interesting backstory:

Typically, candidates meet with newspaper editorial boards to answer questions, clarify positions, and allow the board to compare each candidate’s stance on the issues. Governor Romney took the time out of his busy campaign schedule to meet for an hour with the Des Moines Register editorial board on October 9, 2012 – in a barn on a farm near Van Meter, Iowa.

Four years ago, then-candidate Barack Obama received the nod from the Iowa paper. This time, Obama wanted to do things differently. His habit of thinking a phone call – instead of being there in person – kicked in. He thought it would be good enough. That’s what he did. He picked up his phone and gave a half hour’s time to Des Moines Register president and publisher Laura Hollingsworth and Rick Green, editor and vice-president. Later, after the call, Green wrote on his blog:


Oct 23, 2012

Just four days before the Register’s presidential endorsement is released, Laura Hollingsworth and I received a phone call from the president. He was calling from Florida, on the heels of a morning campaign appearance and about 14 hours after his debate with GOP nominee Mitt Romney at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla.

The conference call lasted nearly 30 minutes…

Just two weeks before Election Day, the discussion, I believe, would have been valuable to all voters, but especially those in Iowa and around the country who have yet to decide between the incumbent Democrat and his Republican opponent.

Unfortunately, what we discussed was off-the-record. It was a condition, we were told, set by the White House.

We repeatedly –- and politely — have asked Obama 2012 campaign officials in Iowa and Chicago for the same access to the president. I believe it earned serious consideration. But despite at least 28 campaign stops and 11 days in our state, we never could convince his team to carve out a few moments for our editorial board –- in our office, on the trail or even in a barn somewhere in Iowa.

Which takes me back to Monday afternoon’s call from the White House, inviting us to chat with President Obama this morning.

It was a “personal call” to the Register’s publisher and editor, we were told. The specifics of the conversation could not be shared because it was off-the-record.

Of course, we immediately lobbied his campaign staff in Des Moines for a formal, on-the-record call. We were told it was not their decision; it came from the White House. We requested that the White House be asked to reverse course so whatever the president shared with us could be reviewed by voters and our readers.

No reason was given for the unusual condition of keeping it private.

We relented and took the call. How could we not? It’s the leader of the free world on line one.

A letter to the editor, published the next day in the Iowa paper, summed up the thoughts expressed by many:

It’s disturbing that President Obama, who promised the most transparent administration in history, refused to go on the record for his interview with The Des Moines Register’s editorial board. …

In stark contrast to Obama’s secretive style, Mitt Romney gave an hour-long, recorded interview with the Register’s editorial board that was shared online for all to see. That’s how it should be. — Sharon DeMers, Ankeny

That same day (Oct 24), without comment, Team Obama released a transcript of Obama’s phone interview.

Here is audio of Governor Romney’s interview with the Des Moines Register editorial board:

18 days later, the Des Moines Register, the largest newspaper in crucial swing-state Iowa, chose to endorse Mitt Romney!

Keep reading! Click here.

Voters Finally Meet the Real Mitt

UPDATE: More stories about Mitt’s character below the fold!

Lots has been said on our site over the past year or so about Mitt the man. But an article from Deroy Murdock appeared in the National Review today entitled “The Decency of Mitt: The Real Romney is Emerging” that reminds me of one of the reasons I support Mitt: his character.

Mr. Murdock starts by pointing out, as a number of commentators now have, that one of the reasons for Mitt’s rise in the polls was the stark contrast between Team Obama’s version of Mitt and reality. With many not happy with Obama’s job performance, their strategy was to paint Mitt as negatively as possible and make people willing to choose the “devil you know.” That strategy, backed up by ceaseless Democrat pounding during the summer and a hundred million dollars in advertising, seemed to be working well, until, well, voters met the real Mitt in the debates.

Murdock asks:

Why is Mitt Romney rising? Americans who watched the GOP nominee debate President Obama never met the cold, greedy, sexist, racist, carcinogenic tax cheat that Team Obama promised would appear. The calm, steady, and reasonable gentleman who opposed Obama was no Gordon Gekko.

Americans might like Romney even more if they understood his random acts of kindness and significant feats of bravery. As Mara Gay, Dan Hirschhorn, and M. L. Nestel wrote for TheDaily.com: “A man weighed down by the image of a heartless corporate raider who can’t relate to people actually has a history of doing remarkably kind things for those in need.”

So let me continue to introduce you to the real Mitt. I’ve put out a couple posts on this topic in the past. One was the largely unfiltered account of the person who bought a house from Mitt. By this man’s telling, Mitt stayed behind to personally walk him through the home, which the buyer had purchased lock, stock and barrel. He came away from the experience with such an appreciation for Mitt’s character that he felt compelled to reach out to the media. Here’s a news report of that story:

Another post was my personal account from occasional interactions with the Romney and Davies families. Bottom line: they’re fantastic people. When looking for someone to cut the fat out of Washington DC, I look at Mitt as the ideal candidate. He is more wealthy than I ever imagine I’ll be, just like the Federal government can be by taxing and borrowing, but the frugality and discipline with which he and his children live their lives indicates an appreciation for the resulting responsibility. I want someone in Washington who has a demonstrated ability to rein in his personal finances. And if I may continue, I first got involved with Mitt’s campaign back in 2007, when I told my friend, his son Matt, if his dad decided to run that I wanted to help. What compelled me was what I’d seen his dad accomplish in Massachusetts working with an 85%+ Democrat state legislature. If he could reach across the aisle in Massachusetts, adopt healthcare reform and balance their budget, maybe he could break through the gridlock in Washington? Four years has taught us that President Obama has been unable to do what he promised on this score: work together with Congress. Mitt’s record indicates he can.

(more…)

Obama Foreign Policy: Seriously Sub-Optimal

Pictures of Barack Obama bowing courtesy of today’s Drudge Report.

Overview.

I’m not going to hammer on the president for his choice of words on Jon Stewart. I’m not a fan of the Dems’ insulting attempts at faux outrage over things like “binders” so I’ll not do anything but quote our president. But we can safely say, as President Obama did, when Americans die our president’s foreign policy is obviously “not optimal.” And when you look back at the past four years, really, we can’t say what’s happened are mere “bumps in the road,” either, but the result of having chosen the wrong road altogether. Today in the New York Post Amir Taheri put it more succinctly: the president’s foreign policy has “failed.”

So before tonight’s debate about foreign policy, let’s remind ourselves just how sub-optimal this president’s foreign policy has been, and how bumpy the road was. People may criticize Mitt for not having foreign policy experience, but Obama only has four more years than Mitt has, having had none when he started on the job training. The question is whether Barack Obama learned anything during that time, and perhaps the biggest indictment contained in the mess in Libya is that his record indicates he hasn’t learned what he needs to, and is willing to close his eyes to the obvious in favor of a narrative that supports, if tenuously, his world view. Meanwhile I’m sure someone else with a different philosophy, like peace through American strength, would do a lot better.

His One Argument: bin Laden

Let’s start by giving the president partial credit for his one “achievement.” In a true team effort, American intelligence, after years of searching that culminated during the Obama administration, was able to find Osama bin Laden. The president then sent a team of experts into Pakistan to kill him. Still, a number of things still trouble me about this “success.”

First, the president’s beaming over the mission and “spiking the football.” While it’s a comforting thought bin Laden is no longer a threat, call me old fashioned but it does not seem appropriate to throw a party when anyone is killed, even if a confessed terrorist and murderer. The appropriate attitude seems to be one of quiet gratitude, and confidence we were able to accomplish what we needed to protect American citizens from harm. But not elation.

Second, the president’s taking personal credit for the achievement. What happened was a success due to years of work starting in the Bush administration and involving hundreds if not thousands of people from intelligence gatherers to planners of the raid to those who actually executed it. Let’s not forget the president watched it on TV, and was not on the ground personally in Pakistan. He deserves credit as the person at the head of the team, but to the extent he deserves that credit, he deserves as much blame for what went wrong in Libya. And gracious leaders give credit where due. I agree he should be congratulated for making the decision to move forward. He took a risk and it paid off. But I disagree with President Clinton’s assessment that this decision took any special fortitude. I believe Mitt’s right that any president would have made the same decision. So Obama’s credit is for being in the seat at the head of table when the team succeeded, and for calling for the two-point conversion to win the game. He succeeded, and gets the credit for that strategic decision. But it was the team on the field, not him that deserves any glory, and an end-zone dance seems particularly inappropriate.

Third, in his desire to take personal credit, the president shared sensitive intelligence information. He volunteered the identity of the team that carried it out, putting them and their families in danger. And this was one of many leaks, coming per Dianne Feinstein directly out of the White House, of sensitive US information. The president seems willing to compromise security when it suits his political purposes, which I find difficult to condone.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the success of this one mission does not mean Al Qaeda is really “on the run,” as has been claimed by the Dems. They’re still in Afghanistan and now are in Libya. And whatever the president’s policy in this regard, despite bin Laden’s removal, the date of Al Qaeda’s last successful terrorist attack is no longer 9/11/01. It’s 9/11/12.

Now, to more problematic issues: world hot spots

1. Libya. Four Americans are killed in Libya despite pleas for additional security. Reports out of the State Department, the intelligence community and the White House contradict who knew what when. Immediately after the attack the president made a generically deniable statement about not letting terrorism deter us, but spent the next two weeks allowing the American people to believe it’s somehow the fault of our freedom of speech and an obscure YouTube video, using rhetoric that could suggest we somehow deserve what happened. Why? Again President Obama and the Democrats insisted on “spiking the football” over Osama bin Laden’s death at their convention, such that it’s an inconvenient truth that Al Qaeda is not really “on the run,” especially in Libya where the president is trying to take credit for “leading from behind.” Contrary to his assertions, Libya is not a model for American foreign policy success as it is now the site of the first assassination of an ambassador in 30 years.

Judge Jeanine of Fox lets it out here:

(more…)

War on Women? Guest Post: Barbara Hiller Johnson

Barbara Johnson and her husband Mark Chapin Johnson are dear friends in California. Barbara is quite the satirist, but her Barbs are quite reflective, insightful and strike a chord that resonates with many Americans. She has a unique perspective on the ‘War on Women’! Enjoy.

Barb’s Barb

Warning! All who are offended easily please be warned the contents of this material are written by a satirist.

What ‘War On Women’?

Yesterday I was feeling nostalgic so I started perusing old black and white family pictures from years gone by. I came across a photo of my mother in her late teens lined up with a group of her girlfriends all wearing miniskirts, shorts or pants in the style of the old Annette Funicello movies at a camp ground. You might say, ‘so what?’ Well, this picture was taken in the late 1950′s in Iran. This is the same country where today a woman at the very least would be arrested for such indecent clothing. You see, I hear every day from our President, while hopping from university to university, preaching about this ‘War on Women’, and I keep looking to see where this war is being waged. I could certainly understand if the opposition candidate was a Rick Santorum type, but it’s Mitt Romney! You know, the moderate from Massachusetts! I guess if you say it often enough it becomes fact and there are plenty of young and impressionable women who believe this guy when he says if he’s not re-elected they would forfeit 50 years of progress. Hmmm! I bet there are a few women in Iran who would jump at the opportunity of by passing Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy and go back to those easy days and I have no doubt there are plenty of women in Egypt that are now considering the option of what it might be like if Barry Obama had stopped supporting the Islamists in their country. It is so very difficult to listen to 20 year old college girls trying to scare someone like me about the perils of a Romney Presidency. The poor girls are so brain washed that most of their cells have turned dormant and refuse to process thought on their own. Somehow, their college professors, the media and all the so called women’s groups reached into this immature casing of hormones and emotion and filled it up with the ultimate Halloween boogie man.

I must say I am not the most tolerant person I know, especially when it comes to low forms of IQ in human form. So, you can just imagine how hard it must be to smile and try to put some sense into a mind of a young girl who has not yet had the opportunity to lift a finger to support herself. She has been fed, clothed and educated throughout the years without a moment of doubt that all will be provided for her. She has a cell phone with internet connection, an assortment of computers, all the cute and cuddly accessories of a college life, most likely in pink, and of course the tiniest little skirts assuring the attention of the opposite sex. She speaks passionately about the terrible possibilities of how we might all end up barefoot and pregnant with men in charge of every aspect of our lives. I listen and listen while she spews the Chicago mob machine’s talking points on how to get women’s votes. I’ve heard it all before. I heard it when a 30 year old female law student testified in front of Congress about how she needed her Catholic University to pay for her contraception. I heard it when all the overpaid starlets of Hollywood spoke at the Democratic National Convention. How does one even approach such an empty vessel? My grandfather used to say the worse curse on the planet is be stuck with dumb person, and here I am. Funny, no one paid for my birth control and somehow I managed, and funny how thirty years ago no one I knew complained about paying for services such as a college education and most of us worked, sometimes, at more than two jobs! It’s funny how we all took pride in our achievements and never expected handouts. In my day it was shameful to be on any form of welfare and that included your parents. Our motto was ‘Hear Me Roar!’ and sadly yours is ‘Give Me More!’

I’m not sure what you think you’re achieving for women these days. If it’s equal pay you should look at the White House for paying its women staff 18% less according to government data. If you’re looking for sexual equality, well, you win, I guess. My only conclusion from your level of whining and expectation is that you truly believe that you are not now, or ever will be; competent enough to take care of yourself and that you would need either your parents or the government to provide for your every whim. My generation fought for the freedom to be responsible for ourselves, to achieve as far as we could or wanted to achieve, to be in charge our destiny. I’m saddened to see your generation is about expectations to have others do for you. Who is enslaved with shackles now, you or me? It is interesting that when it came to voting for a woman to reach the White House more women voted for the good looking younger man. Even Oprah, the queen of women’s issues put aside her life’s work to choose color over gender.

So little girl, I feel sorry for you. Not because there might be a chance any real progress in opportunity for women will be thwarted in the future, but for the lack of pride and individual accomplishment I see in you today. We have had a right leaning Supreme Court for decades and there has been no reversal in any legal choices for women. If you survived the farthest to the right President, such as Bush, I have no doubt you can survive Mitt Romney who has only proven in deeds to be a fair and considerate human being. Frankly, I am horribly offended by your lack of respect for the true achievement my generation and ones before mine allowing you to be an independent individual with the right to choose your own destiny. To see all that hard work and sacrifice be squandered by the agenda of one incompetent political figure and his ability to brainwash you is very sad indeed. My dear, you are selling your soul to be at the mercy of a man after all!

Obama: Using Taxpayer Money to Buy Votes

If you’re like me you may have missed a story a couple weeks ago that has broader ramifications than you may have originally thought.

You may recall that “sequestration” is the collection of automatic budget cuts proposed by the White House and agreed to under duress by Congress as part of the debt ceiling negotiations. The cuts go into effect on January 2 unless Congress and the President act. Kind of like a spending cut time bomb: the White House extracted this concession in exchange for its agreement to increase the debt ceiling, with the hope it could get Congress to accept other less terrible cuts and tax increases later. That plan has backfired, however, and we’re left with the real possibility of the president’s sequestration time bomb going off. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said these cuts would have a “catastrophic” effect on national security, “like shooting ourselves in the head.”

As a result, businesses, especially defense contractors, are now preparing to lay off up to one million workers. A friend I spoke with yesterday told me at his company no one knows if they’ll have a job come January 2. Usually these workers would not have to wait until the day the layoffs occur to know their fate. Under a Federal law called the “WARN Act,” companies with 100 or more employees must give workers 60 days notice before a layoff of the lesser of 1/3 or 500 people. Failure to provide the notice can result in significant exposure to employee lawsuits. To avoid these costs, companies would need to notify workers of a pending layoff by November 2, 2012.

Well, that’s terribly inconvenient timing for the president. Friday November 2 is the Friday before the election. It’d be a real bummer for a million voters to get pink slips four days before voting. Not wanting to let a good law get in the way of re-election, the Obama administration on July 30, through Jane Oates, assistant secretary in the Labor Department, issued “guidance” advising companies they need not comply with the WARN Act if they’re contemplating sequestration layoffs. Effectively the administration advised defense contractors to not tell employees they’re about to get fired. Never mind the reason behind the Act that employees should be given a fair heads’ up. According to Obama, that law “shouldn’t” apply if the Department of Labor says it doesn’t.

But it gets worse. Many companies saw the advice from the Department of Labor and said they were going to provide the notices anyway, since ultimately whether they violated the law, and had to pay related penalties, would be determined not by the Department of Labor, but the courts. These companies’ exposure was estimated to be as much as $4 billion, plus inestimable other expenses (see below). So, having not been convincing enough, on September 28, on the letterhead of the “Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget” the Obama administration went even further and agreed to pick up the tab for these companies’ failing to comply with the law. In other words, if these companies rely on the DOL’s advice, fail to timely provide WARN Act notices, and lay off employees with no warning whatsoever on January 2, Obama has volunteered to pay, at taxpayer expense, all resulting costs, including penalties, judgements and legal fees. Did I say this was at taxpayer expense? (more…)

Cartoon of the Day: Biden, What Are You Smiling At?

Cartoon of the Day

“Joe, what are you smiling at?”

By Michael Ramirez – Oct 13, 2012


After the V.P. debate, Joe Biden may have resuscitated a puff of reelection fire for Democrats, but fat lot of good he did for himself.

Batty Biden’s histrionic hokey debate performance will go down in the annals of history where he’ll have the official distinction as ‘Loon of the Liberals’.

Follow Jayde Wyatt on Twitter @YayforSummer

Page 1 of 17123456Last »