Bewildered or Deceptive?

The failure of President Obama and his advocates, including the mainstream media, to understand economics 101 is distressing to say the least. Whether it is intentional duplicity, guile, or dishonesty on his part, or just plain ignorance because he doesn’t understand – it is disconcerting and frightening that our President would be so irresponsible as to lead American’s astray from truth!

Recent attacks against free enterprise and private equity by Barack Obama and his apologists are the tip of the iceberg and reflect an underlying agenda that is alarming. Even so, let’s address the attacks with substance and truth. The attacks are seeking to vilify the free enterprise system, private equity investors, and specifically Mitt Romney because of his business success. Barack Obama wants to disparage those who have been successful in business and fails to realize that rising tides float all boats. It is the foundation for his class warfare argument! Truth is, if we do not have a successful free enterprise system, no one, and I mean no one benefits. If we disrupt the balance and supplant the free enterprise system with government, we all lose and the middle class will disappear – in fact, we will elevate the impoverished. It is in our free enterprise system, and it’s success, that we overcome poverty. Why else have we seen nations around the world, even socialistic and communistic nations, adopt free enterprise? Within this context, free enterprise and private equity are synonymous.

Private equity in its simplest form is the foundation of free enterprise and economic markets. Anyone who invests capital directly into a business with a hoped for economic return is engaged in some form or degree of private equity. Whether you are Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, the owner of a small business selling jewelry out of your home, or a large private equity fund, you invest time and capital into building a business and making it successful – this is basis for the private equity markets. Interestingly, you may not even be aware that you are a private equity investor. If you have pension or retirement funds (IRA or 401k) and are invested in the debt or equity markets, you are participating in private equity investments in one form or another; if you have donated to a charity or not-for-profit you may be, tangentially, a private equity investor; it is only a matter of degree. Private equity investors are individuals, pension funds, charitable funds, educational foundations, governments, corporations, etc., each of whom provide capital to build and sustain free enterprise markets and businesses. That said, no one invests their money with an expectation to fail, only to succeed; and success comes with sustainability and a return of capital and then some. The role of government is not to constrain these markets, but to encourage and expand them. For in such we see the ‘private equity multiplier effect.’ The ‘private equity multiplier effect’ is most easily seen in job creation, wealth creation and innovation.

Mitt Romney creates billions of dollars for others

Mitt Romney’s self-made business successes have come under attack from President Obama. We read that his success has created personal wealth estimated at $350+ million. What isn’t discussed are the billions of dollars of wealth created for so many others. What Mitt Romney garnered in wealth from his business success is nominal compared to what he has created for so many others, including pension fund and retirement accounts for many Americans, charities, employers, employees, individual investors and shareholders, and businesses. If one understands the multiplier effect of wealth creation, this means that in his career, Mitt Romney has had a profound and extended impact in the lives of innumerable Americans – far beyond the 100,000 jobs created in and as a result of his work.

The President of the United States has available to him the full resource of the United States. He has access to the brightest and most capable economic minds on the planet, and yet he doesn’t understand basic economics? He doesn’t understand the private equity multiplier effect? Or, he does and deliberately seeks to misinform the public? Either way, it is irresponsible and/or dishonest! The President of the United States is held to a higher standard. As a people we entrust him with the burden of care and stewardship to lead with integrity. We trust him to put country above self, and not subordinate American’s to ignorance, deception and deceit for personal power or position. He has a sacred trust and stewardship to lead with integrity and truth. This is a standard that all who have been elected to public office must abide. Even so, many don’t, and neither is this President.

It has been said that the fear of losing the office of POTUS is greater than the want to secure it; and it is becoming more and more apparent that Barack Obama, and those who advocate for him, are willing to abandon truth and integrity in an effort to preserve power and position. Their want for power and position, and willingness to do whatever it takes to preserve it, is frightening given the agenda they hold to neuter and undermine America’s divine exceptionalism and freedoms.

Fundamental to America’s economic strength, and consequentially our freedom, is our adoption of free enterprise and “free markets”. Free enterprise embodies the principles espoused in our Nation’s founding documents, wherein we are empowered with the agency to choose and act, within the bounds of nature’s law. In free enterprise, we act on principles embodied in such and granted by “nature’s God”, the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Barack Obama should be ashamed!

A new book by David Parker

_______________________
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In order to keep the seven women below off President Obama’s enemies list, their last names were omitted, as was their location. This photograph was made on Mothers’ Day 2012 for their cousin Mitt. First cousins are Carol, Joan, and Helen. Second cousins, once removed, are Debra, Wendy, Dianne, and Tamara. (see order below photo)

[Photograph used by permission of all seven of Mitt's cousins]

After Obama’s presser today in Chicago, wherein he clearly revealed his campaign’s focus is to attack private equity, free enterprise, and Mitt Romney’s results-oriented capacities, Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement:

PRESIDENT OBAMA FAILS TO ACCEPT MORAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS FAILED POLICIES

“President Obama confirmed today that he will continue his attacks on the free enterprise system, which Mayor Booker and other leading Democrats have spoken out against. What this election is about is the 23 million Americans who are still struggling to find work and the millions who have lost their homes and have fallen into poverty. President Obama refuses to accept moral responsibility for his failed policies. My campaign is offering a positive agenda to help America get back to work.”

CNN’s Gut Check:

4:28 p.m. ET: The Obama Campaign Tweets:

Barack Obama (‏@BarackObama)
“Mitt Romney takes from the poor … and gives to the rich. He’s just the opposite of Robin Hood.” http://OFA.BO/j6FZcR #RomneyEconomics

Obama’s false, class warfare tweet deafeningly chirps “I’M DESPERATE.”

4:37 p.m. ET: President Obama, at the NATO summit press conference, pits POLITICAL EQUITY against PRIVATE EQUITY: “My view of private equity is that it is, it is set up to maximize profits and that is a healthy part of the free market, of course. That’s part of the role of a lot of business people. That is not unique to private equity. … But understand their priority is to maximize profits, and that is not always going to be good for communities or businesses or workers. And the reason this is relevant to the campaign is that because my opponent, Gov. Romney, the main calling card for why he should be president is his business experience. He is not going out there touting his experience in Massachusetts, he is saying, ‘I am a business guy and I know how to fix it,’ and this is his business. And when you are president as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits. Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot. … And so if your main argument for how to grow the economy is, ‘I knew how to make a lot of money for investors,’ then you are missing what this job is about.”

Obama’s argument is silly. Governor Romney’s leadership at Bain Capital focused on people… how to save dying businesses, create jobs for people, and turn failure into personal success for them.

In spite of Obama’s eye-rolling rhetoric, attention today was on Obama supporter New Jersey Mayor Cory Booker (see Luke’s post):

It is never a good day for a candidate when a prominent surrogate becomes the story and sucks all of the political oxygen out of the room. Cue Newark, New Jersey Mayor Cory Booker, whose comments Sunday on “Meet the Press” about negative campaigning has overshadowed all other political stories in the past 24 hours.
…
“This kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides,” Booker said Sunday on “Meet the Press.”
“It’s nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity [...] This stuff has got to stop because what it does is it undermines, to me, what this country should be focused on. It’s a distraction from the real issues. It’s either going to be a small campaign about this crap, or it’s going to be a big campaign, in my opinion, about the issues that the American public cares about.”

It wasn’t long until Booker was taken to the Obama wood shed:

It took only a matter of hours after his “Meet the Press” appearance before Booker put out a three-minute, 42-second You Tube video clarifying his remarks and endorsing the Obama campaign strategy to criticize Romney’s business record.

Booker said he decided to make the video because he “got so much feedback…” I’ll bet. Heads in the White House and Chicago must have exploded.

“Let me be clear, Mitt Romney has made his business record a centerpiece of his campaign,” Booker said in the straight to camera explanation. “He’s talked about himself as a job creator, and therefore it is reasonable, and therefore I encourage it, for the Obama campaign to examine that record and discuss it. I have no problem with that.”

Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt claims Booker wasn’t asked to make the video and the views Booker expressed in the video are his own. (The Obama Machine is depending on American gullibility and ignorance to pass off that bit of balderdash.)

…[Y]ou could see from Obama’s comments at the NATO press conference, that his campaign used the “Booker news cycle” to double down on their attacks on Romney and Bain.

And what seems to have been lost in the shuffle was that Booker would not back off his criticism of the negative tone of the campaign.

“I used the word nauseating on ‘Meet the Press,’ because that’s really how I feel when I see people in my city struggling with real issues and still feeling the challenges of this economy, and still looking for hope and opportunity and real specific plans,” Booker said. “I get very upset when I see such a level of dialogue.”

Gut Check conclusion:

The dialogue Booker bemoans had a presidential podium at an international news conference moments ago.

All this from a President who presides over the most onerous economic stagnation since the Great Depression, who has racked up nearly more debt than all other presidents combined, who hasn’t passed a federal budget since he’s been in office, and, at the same NATO summit, had the audacity to counsel struggling European nations to forget austerity measures and spend more money they don’t have.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

By Gary Varvel - May 22, 2012

(emphasis added to article)

Since the general election began in earnest in early May, Mr. Obama and team have had a really tough month. He has had very few political gains and lots of chinks in his armor; some of them self-inflicted.

Karl Rove effectively lines out President Obama’s month of May for us in his weekly Wall Street Journal opinion piece titled, “Obama’s Campaign Is Off to a Rocky Start.”

[...]
First, Team Obama politicized the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death on May 2 by releasing a video claiming that Mitt Romney would not have ordered the strike. The video didn’t pay much tribute to the Navy SEALs who actually carried out the perilous mission. The whole thing came across as ungracious and egocentric.

On May 4, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that only 115,000 new jobs were created in April while 342,000 Americans became so discouraged that they dropped out of the workforce. When unemployment creeps down because people are leaving the labor force, it’s evidence of a sick economy, not a robust recovery.

The next day, Mr. Obama formally kicked off his re-election campaign with a rally at Ohio State University. But “there were a lot of empty seats,” according to the Toledo Blade. Vacant chairs and a nearly empty arena floor are not good optics for a political campaign. To add insult to injury, a New York Times reporter described it and a Virginia rally later that day as having at times “the feeling of a concert by an aging rock star.”
[...]

As I thought of this general election cycle, more than a few times I have thought to myself, “I sure hope that Obama does not take Biden off the ticket and replace him with someone more articulate; more eloquent.” Especially after his “Meet the Press” interview that first Sunday in May! Love this quote included by Rove:

…that he was “absolutely comfortable with . . . men marrying men, women marrying women.” The White House had to scramble, immediately reaffirming Mr. Obama’s support for traditional marriage. But three days later, he told ABC’s Robin Roberts, “I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

Why the shift? Newsweek’s Andrew Sullivan credits the need for campaign dollars from gay donors and votes from now apathetic young men and women under 30. New York Magazine’s John Heilemann quotes unnamed White House aides who say that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s signing of legislation legalizing same-sex marriage led Mr. Obama to shift privately early this year. According to Mr. Heilemann’s reporting, Mr. Obama was going to wait a month or two to maximize the political payback from a public conversion, and the need for campaign cash and youthful voters was part of the equation.

Whatever the reasons, the president’s announcement came across as political: 67% in a May 11-13 CBS News/New York Times survey said the president announced his public support for same-sex marriage “for political reasons” while 24% said he did it because “he thinks it’s right.” A USA/Gallup poll of May 10 found only 11% of independents said they would be more likely to vote for him because of his shift, and 23% said they would be less likely.

While this kerfuffle played out, West Virginia and North Carolina Democrats held their presidential primaries on May 8. In West Virginia, 40% chose Keith Judd, a felon in a Texas federal correctional facility, over Mr. Obama. In battleground North Carolina, nearly 21% expressed “no preference” for president.

Then on May 11, Mr. Obama traveled to Nevada to tout the success of his “Hardest Hit Fund,” launched two years ago, in staving off foreclosures. But a government report that morning revealed it had helped only 30,640 homeowners, not the three million to four million the administration originally promised.

On Wednesday, the news was that Mr. Obama’s fundraising dropped to $43.6 million in April from $53 million in March. At this stage, he will be hard pressed to reach his 2008 total of $750 million, let alone the $1 billion goal his campaign set last year.

The president has trailed or been tied with Mr. Romney in 16 of the last 29 Gallup five- and seven-day tracking polls. This during a period when, with significant organizational and money advantages and no primary opponent, he should be pounding his Republican challenger in the polls.

In 2008, Team Obama ran a first-rate campaign. They made relatively few unforced errors and capitalized on openings. Things look very different this time. The re-election effort is off-key and off-balance, making the president’s strategic weaknesses more apparent. His record is uninspiring. He has no explanation for his first term and no rationale for a second.

Mr. Obama may have difficulty leading and governing but has been considered an effective campaigner. Events in May are starting to call that into question.

[emphasis added]

“Our democracy poses problems and these problems must and shall be solved by courageous leadership.” ~ Charles Edison

UPDATE: Watch the latest Crossroads Ad:

Today, our family spent the afternoon at a beautiful beach called Aliso Creek in Laguna Beach, CA. Next to us was a couple and a friend of theirs speaking a foreign language I could barely hear. When the two men (both about 30) stood up and were chatting, I approached and asked where they were from. They said, “Latvia” and told me they were speaking Russian. One has lived in the U.S. for eight years and the couple was visiting America from Latvia. I asked the resident if he is American and he told me, “Not yet.” I asked him if he could vote today, whom would he vote for between President Obama and Romney? With no hesitation, he said, “Oh, Romney!” I asked why he would not vote for President Obama? He said, “I think he has been president long enough. He really hasn’t done much and it is time he goes away.”

Is there much else to write about? No. Check out Michael Ramirez’s latest political cartoon just below.

Nuf said?

Michael: Governor Romney is more fit than this! Love your art!

Artwork by Michael Ramirez

.
.

I have finally reached another ‘melting’ point after a smorgasbord of too many liberal news ‘commentators’ or as I call them, propagandists. How dare they presume to know what Governor Romney thinks or believes when it comes to any issue?

The turning point for me was on poor Americans. I have heard talking head after talking head say how he just can’t understand the plight of (fill in the gap),of the poor, of the middle class, and of every other income bracket except the very rich. They have cited how he certainly couldn’t understand the plight of a poor mother that can’t work to support her children. That is as ridiculous as saying that an occupy protester cannot understand the circumstances of a rich banker (which I believe actually has more chance of being right). It doesn’t take a depth of experience or learning to be empathetic. It just takes a listening ear and a modicum of concern. Both of which seem in short supply with the liberal media. Who declares that an elected official must have experienced all walks of life in order to govern? Who sets the standard for empathy or understanding? It clearly isn’t the liberal media who seem to have a hot line to Governor Romney’s mind and intentions. Can’t we leave it to the candidates to tell us how they think, feel and will govern?

As we now are in the ‘silly’ season of general election campaigning, can we not take a deep breath and let the candidates define their positions, set their agendas, explain their strategy and philosophy and let their statements and past actions be weighed in the balance? Why is every media pundit a mind reading psychologist that somehow is able to lay out Governor Romeny’s inner thoughts and unspoken feelings? I am not sure who, in some dark corner at the dawn of enlightenment, said if you say anything enough it will become true. That appears to be the overriding strategy not only of the Obama campaign, but also the liberal media. I do believe that repetition is the mother of all learning, but it can also be the mother of all lying when it is not used with accuracy. To the media, stop telling us that Governor Romney cannot or will not understand anyone that he doesn’t know, have a relationship with or has the same financial background as he does. I would rather hear a discussion of how both candidates, Governor Romney and President Obama handle diversity of opinion in their decision making, listen to and understand problems and challenges and how they delegate, lead and compromise divergent ideas for progress. Isn’t that the heart of the issue? Don’t we want to know how a prospective President will govern? Happily we have three plus years of record with which to judge President Obama, and numerous activities with which to judge Governor Romney (business, Olympics, State of Massachusetts, etc.).

How about we let the candidates debate, exchange positions, explain their prior agendas and their corresponding results and let voters make up their own minds. I know I can’t force others to do anything, but for me, that is how I am going to proceed.

There is one more liberal notion that sends me into fits. How is it that fairness can be invoked and applied to any situation without being even somewhat true to its definition. My dictionary lists the first definition of fair as, ‘an adjective, as free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice.’ Fairness is applied to taxes (pay your fair share), to love and marriage, and to any ‘politically correct concept’ nowadays. I am getting tired of fairness as being the reason any idea, reasonable or not is to be accepted and followed. Can someone help me here? Shouldn’t ideas stand on their own merits, not someone’s standard of fairness (eye of the beholder)? Rather, polls, spin and oratory are the current tools of reasoning. (see impact of liberals’ “fairness”).

I am looking for the good old days when ideas, political positions, programs, and yes even government budgets, would be debated on their respective merits and not using the liberal ‘fairness’ doctrine. Again, I for one am going to continue to listen to both sides of an issue, apply my own sense of reason and try and reach a conclusion that maybe, just maybe might be viewed as ‘fair’ by someone else. I am not going to hope to make a judgment that would be politically popular, or bolster up a political agenda. Principle over spin? Perhaps this is not practical in today’s world.

I end where I began, let’s judge candidates on what they say and do (or have done), and not on what they should be thinking based on our interest in pegging them as unfit. Who will join me?

Mr. Stevens lives in Laguna Niguel, CA with his wife Susan. He has over 30 years of sales, sales management, marketing and business development experience. He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics from University of Utah and earned a Masters of Arts in Applied Mathematics from the University of California, Los Angeles.

Did you see the frenetic diatribe from V.P. Joe Biden in prized swing state Ohio the other day? Going into almost Howard Dean scream mode, Biden worked himself into a lather making up stuff on how Republicans, the rich, and Mitt Romney don’t think the middle class “dreams” about becoming millionaires or president of the United States.

Seriously.

Drama Joe:

At a campaign stop in Youngstown, Ohio, today, Vice President Joe Biden lit into Republicans and their presumed presidential nominee Mitt Romney for what he described as a failure to understand the plight of the middle class.

“I resent when they talk about families like mine that I grew up in. I resent the fact that they think we’re talking about envy: it’s job envy, it’s wealthy envy; that we don’t dream,” an impassioned Biden told a crowd of manufacturing workers.

“My mother believed and my father believed that if I wanted to be president of the United States, that I could be, I could be vice president! My mother and father believed that if my brother or sister wanted to be a millionaire, they could be a millionaire! My mother and father dreamed as much as any rich guy dreams!

“They don’t get us! They don’t get who we are!” he yelled before the crowd, drawing loud applause.

Biden was referring broadly to Republican criticism of the administration’s push for higher taxes on wealthier Americans and expanded investment in federal programs aimed at boosting low- to middle-income families.

What a crock.

Biden was so into his theatrics while yelling he didn’t even notice a fly landing on his head.

Last night, FOX News’ Bill O’Reilly jumped all over Biden’s rant. He asked what the beef is from the Obama administration:

O’Reilly – “Bottom line: This is all a bunch of garbage. The class warfare the Obama administration is peddling is bogus.”

Vice President Joe Biden's private water-front residence sits on four and a half acres in Wilmington, Delaware.

● Like a laser, Mitt Romney keeps steering the political conversation back to what Americans want to know. Today, Romney for President has released a positive new television ad titled “Day One.” The ad will air in four key battleground states: Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia.

Mitt Romney has outlined a bold agenda to spur economic growth and create jobs. On his first day in office, he will approve the Keystone pipeline, introduce pro-growth tax reforms, and repeal Obamacare.

Day One (See Spanish version here.):

Mitt Romney has a vision for America. It is an America driven by a growing middle class. An America that lets free enterprise work. An America where education, hard work, and living within our means are valued and rewarded.

We can restore America’s greatness — beginning on day one with President Romney. Let’s make that vision a reality.

Seeing our Vice President resort to purple face class warfare to hawk Obama’s trillion and a half dollars per year deficit-socialist-beg-China spending and obfuscating Obama’s utter economic failure is another jolting reminder. America – time to break into a run… in a different direction.

Biden and Barack must go.

Help Governor Romney turn America around by donating here.

› Jayde Wyatt

American presidential politics always pit a Republican against a Democrat, but rarely do we see true polar opposites come together to compete as we have in 2012. In my lifetime, the last presidential election I can recall that included distinctly different candidates was the Carter / Reagan election of 1980. In so many interesting ways, this election feels oddly similar to those times.

In recent days, Governor Romney and President Obama gave commencement speeches at two different colleges. The speech given by Governor Romney was truly inspiring and one of the best he has ever given. If you have not seen it, you really need to (it really is worth the time). To watch it in its entirety, click here.

Daniel Henninger’s weekly column in The Wall Street Journal yesterday was titled, “A Tale of Two Commencements” — (For Obama, politics is life. For Romney, politics does not define us.)

Henninger perfectly contrasts Obama’s frequent victims message with Romney’s message of optimism, rooted in selfless service.

Two days after Mitt Romney delivered the commencement speech at Liberty University, the big evangelical Christian school founded by Jerry Falwell, Barack Obama tutored graduates at Barnard College, the intensely liberal all-women’s school adjacent to Columbia University. As you might guess, the wisdom these two political elders imparted to the Class of 2012 was not the same.
[...]
Barack Obama, by now a master at faux self-deflation, admitted he was pandering: “Now I recognize that’s a cheap applause line when you’re giving a commencement at Barnard.” (Laughter.) He had said the women of this generation will help lead the way. (Applause.)
[...]
The world that Barack Obama conveyed to the women at Barnard is totally, overwhelmingly political. To be sure, there were references to parental joy at the success of children completing college, but virtually every thought in the Obama commencement address—on the accomplishments of the past or a graduate’s goals—was defined by political activity.

He said they are about to grapple with unique challenges, “like whether you’ll be able to earn equal pay for equal work” or “fully control decisions about your own health.”

The role of the citizen in “our democracy” began 225 years ago at the Convention in Philadelphia, which had “flaws,” to wit: “Questions of race and gender were unresolved.” Nonetheless, it “allowed for protest and movements.”

And so: “Don’t accept somebody else’s construction of the way things ought to be. It’s up to you to right wrongs. It’s up to you to point out injustice. It’s up to you to hold the system accountable and sometimes upend it entirely. It’s up to you to stand up and to be heard, to write and to lobby, to march, to organize, to vote.”

Mr. Obama described his own early job as a community organizer: “I wanted to do my part to shape a better world.” He cited the accomplishments of previous generations of young people who “stood up and sat in from Seneca Falls to Selma to Stonewall.” This, Mr. Obama said, is how “we achieved” women’s rights, voting rights, workers’ rights and gay rights.

Barack Obama seems to inhabit a world of history and personal experience in which good people at every turn are held back by individuals or oppressive forces that one only overcomes by personal or public resistance.

Someone in high school told Labor Secretary Hilda Solis she wasn’t college material. Mr. Obama’s grandmother worked for a bank but hit the glass ceiling. And today there are “those who oppose change, those who benefit from an unjust status quo [and] have always bet on the public’s cynicism or the public’s complacency.” He predicts they will lose “this time as well.”

Fair enough. That’s how the world works for Barack Obama, though it strikes me he is telling America’s 22-year-olds that the road ahead is a fairly grim proletarian struggle. Be ready to occupy everything. Where’s the joy in that?

There was less tooth and claw in the Romney speech at Liberty University. In a discussion of the uses of religious freedom, one passage in particular separated Mr. Romney from Barack Obama’s default to mass action. “The great drama of Christianity,” Gov. Romney said, “is not a crowd shot, following the movements of collectives or even nations. The drama is always personal, individual, unfolding in one’s own life.” Out of this, he said, “Men and women of every faith, and good people with none at all, sincerely strive to do right and lead a purpose-driven life.”

Progress, he argued, emerges through “conscience in action,” for him “the nation’s greatest force for good.” Mr. Romney referred several times to the idea of personal service. “The call to service,” he said “is one of the fundamental elements of our national character. It has motivated every great movement of conscience that this hopeful, fair-minded country of ours has ever seen.”

For Barack Obama, life is politics. For Mitt Romney, life includes politics; politics, he said, does not define us.

To wage a presidential campaign in our nonstop media age, the man who sees politics as a battering ram may have an edge. But Mitt Romney, with his politics of optimism and personal conscience, could be onto something that will serve him well.

“Today, thanks to what you have gained here, you leave Liberty with conviction and confidence as your armor. You know what you believe. You know who you are. And you know Whom you will serve. Not all colleges instill that kind of confidence, but it will be among the most prized qualities from your education here. Moral certainty, clear standards, and a commitment to spiritual ideals will set you apart in a world that searches for meaning.” ~ Mitt Romney, Liberty University, May 12, 2012

My cynical side tells me that Mr. Obama knowingly lies in his speeches. But then again, maybe he just does not understand business and history. By now, it is obvious to all American’s that Mr. Obama knows very little about basic business principles. Whether his errant rhetoric is dishonesty or lack of knowledge, does the distinction matter? Just below is the subtext of a brief WSJ editorial that reads:

“The Internet made Microsoft possible, and other tall tales.”

Mr. Obama runs fast and loose with business terminology all along the trail. Have you not heard him use the term “invest” or “investment” sprinkled among his other favorite words “fair” and “fairness?”

The very first thought I had when reading this piece was, “Did Al Gore coach Mr. Obama ahead of this speech?”

Today’s Journal carried an editorial called Obama’s History of Business that effectively calls into question his knowledge of business technology and his integrity:

[...] So eager is he to make this point that, well, let’s just say he sometimes wanders beyond his area of expertise, as he did last Thursday in Seattle.

“When I hear people talk about the free enterprise system and entrepreneurship, I try to remind them, you know, all of us made that investment in Darpa [the Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] that helped to get the Internet started,” said Mr. Obama. “So there’s no Facebook, there’s no Microsoft, there’s no Google if we hadn’t made this common investment in our future.”

Microsoft—a product of the Internet? That may surprise Bill Gates and Paul Allen, who founded the software company in 1975. The company didn’t introduce its first Internet browser for another 20 years, and in the meantime it became the dominant computer software company long before the Internet became economically important. The irony of Mr. Obama’s error is that for much of Microsoft’s history the Internet was seen as a threat to its desktop dominance.

There’s no doubt that Darpa has done many good things, but the point Mr. Obama misses is that Darpa is engaged in funding research. This is a proper role for government, especially on national defense. But Darpa does not attempt to commercialize products. Facebook and Google, like Apple and Microsoft, were founded by private investors.

The President likes to elide that distinction between government funding for basic research and commercialization, which is how his Administration lost so much money on stinkers like Solyndra.

Mr. Obama indulged in similar government hype in his January State of the Union address when he suggested that federal research spending “led to the computer chip.” Perhaps federal research made a contribution, but credit for building the first integrated circuit has generally been given to Jack Kilby at a company called Texas Instruments in 1958. Other innovations came from Bell Labs, Fairchild Semiconductor and Intel, among many other private firms.

The problem here is less Mr. Obama’s historical errors than his emphasis. He really does believe that prosperity flows from government, which is why all of his policies promote more government.

Just last week Mr. Obama told Americans that what is important is not whether you are better off today but whether you will be better off in the future (presumably hoping they will press “forward” with him again).

The answer to his rhetorical question is: “Yes! The future will be much brighter and all will be far better off with President Mitt Romney as our 45th President of the United States!”

“Nothing more completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.” ~ Charles Caleb Colton

***Please note that the following article is solely the opinion of the author and does not speak for or represent Mitt Romney or the Romney campaign.

President Obama’s announcement last week that he “supports gay marriage” helped provide a clear contrast between Obama and Romney and will almost certainly have a major impact on the elections in November.

History has shown that the issue of gay marriage is a powerful vote mover. As Politico reported last week: 

For all the signs of increased tolerance and changing mores, there’s one undeniable fact: A full embrace of gay rights has never been a winner in the political arena.

Fifteen years of ballot measures in more than 30 states from coast-to-coast show an issue that has been rejected nearly every time it’s gone before the voters — often by large margins.

As many political observers have noted, Obama’s announcement moves the electoral map more in the favor of Mitt Romney.  In particular, Obama’s move helps tilt “6 or 7 key swing states” toward the Romney camp. These states are namely North Carolina, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio.

In North Carolina voters overwhelmingly supported a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the state just one week ago. In another crucial swing state, Florida, a similar ban was passed in 2008. Ohio, Michigan and Missouri also passed similar bans in 2004. Virginia, Colorado and Wisconsin passed bans in 2006 and Arizona in 2008.

A lot has been said lately about the shifting support for gay marriage over the last decade. Many point to a recent poll saying that a slim majority of Americans now support gay marriage. However, in regard to polls, keep in mind two key facts. #1) During the upcoming election, the swing states matter a lot more than the national average. And the swing states are showing a strong inclination away from same sex marriage. And #2) Aaron Blake of the Washington Post recently released this analysis about polls on gay marriage:

Does a majority of the country really support gay marriage?

As is often true in polling, it depends on how you ask the question.

A Gallup poll last week showed that 51 percent of Americans support gay marriage, but a CBS News/New York Times poll out today shows that only 38 percent support it.

The difference: Gallup gave voters just two options — support or oppose — while the CBS/NYT poll added a third, civil unions.

When given that third choice, polls show that it draws significantly from both the pro-gay marriage and anti-gay marriage camps, but in the end, overall support for gay marriage drops well below a majority.

Notably, then, the civil unions choice also appears to be drawing some support from gay marriage opponents — a reflection that there is plenty of support (62 percent) for some kind of legal recognition of gay couples.

For Obama, a candidate who has been angling to the political center, his announcement represents a hard turn to the political left. In my humble opinion, I think it is going to be too far left for most people – an overstep where Obama got in “a little over his skis.”

Take for example, the new shirts for sale on Barack Obama’s website. Some of the slogans on the shirts read, ”My two moms support Obama” or “My two dads support Obama.” 

These are not center-of-the-road phrases. I don’t think these kinds of phrases would be seen in virtually any election in the US, even predominantly democratic ones.

Another shirt says “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repealed 12/22/10.” I am not sure that is a slogan you want to publicize very broadly since most in the military were opposed to repealing DADT. 

While there is little doubt that Obama’s newfound support for gay marriage will energize the LGBT community as never before, it will also energize the even larger group of social and religious conservatives. In the swing states and among America’s silent majority, the results of Obama’s announcement will tip the scales of the election more toward Mitt Romney. 

As a side note, I think it is important to remember that even though gay marriage has emerged as a big issue in the upcoming election, Romney still plans to focus primarily on the economy and jobs as his main message to voters.