But today the fact checkers are out in force. It appears that most of the mis-statements were made by the president. Here are a few facts that Team Obama’s personal television channel has had to admit.

Check 1: Did Mitt Romney support the auto bailout?

Obama: The — look, I think anybody out there can check the record. Governor Romney, you keep on trying to, you know, airbrush history here. You were very clear that you would not provide government assistance to the U.S. auto companies even if they went through bankruptcy. You said that they could get it in the private marketplace. That wasn’t true.

MSNBC Lori Robertson: “Romney was right. Obama was wrong.”

Check 2: Obama Tried To Deny That He Proposed A Status Of Forces Agreement That Would Have Left Thousands Of Troops In Iraq.

ROMNEY: “You didn’t want a status of forces agreement?”

OBAMA: “What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”

ROMNEY: “I’m sorry. You actually — there was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces against, and I concurred in that and said we should have a number of troops that stayed on. That was something I concurred with. That was your posture and mine as well. You thought it should have been 5,000 troops and I thought it should have been more troops.”

OBAMA: “Governor, this was done a few weeks ago. A few weeks ago you indicated we should still have troops in Iraq.”

ROMNEY: “No, I didn’t. Sorry, I indicated that you failed to put in place a status of forces agreement at the end of the conflict that existed.”

The Status of Forces Agreement signed between the United States and Iraq in 2008 called for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraqi cities by 2009 and be out of the country entirely by the end of 2011.

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell: “So Governor Romney is right, that the administration has tried and failed to get an agreement called Status of Forces Agreement that, in fact, would have allowed a small force of troops to remain for several years in Iraq.”

Check 3: Did the MA tuition free college programs start under Romney?

ROMNEY: Said that when he was Massachusetts governor, high-school students who graduated in the top quarter “got a four-year, tuition-free ride at any Massachusetts public institution of higher learning.”

OBAMA: “That happened before you came into office.”

ROMNEY: “That was actually mine, actually, Mr. President. You got that fact wrong.”

“You find a way to make this happen,” Berntsen says. “There isn’t a plan for every single engagement. Sometimes you have to be able to make adjustments. They made zero adjustments in this. They stood and they watched and our people died.”

The “new & improved” spin coming out of the Obama Administration, (yes they are changing the “story again”), goes something like this: “we are gonna stand by this narrative– this attack is somewhere between a spontaneous event where well armed and well trained “individuals” (don’t call them terrorists!) capitalized on heightened protests in the region whereas these individuals took to the streets with military grade weapons and  stormed our Consulate, whereas four Americans were killed.”   Basically, that is what is now being said.  Obama Campaign  spinmaster Stephanie Cutter, on NBC yesterday said

“its important we don’t politicize this, every step of the way as intelligence is learned, as the intelligence “improves” about what happened that night, the President makes it available to Congress and to the American people, its been a very transparent process…”  (emphasis mine)

The CBS report also says that at the beginning of the attack: 

“…an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle.

The State Department, White House and Pentagon declined to say what military options were available. A White House official told CBS News that, at the start of the attack, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta “looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies.”

Ok, so here we have Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, being well aware and involved in decision making on Benghazi from the very beginning, actually “looking for available options”.  This kind of raises many questions, one being,  why did Dempsey and Panetta decide to “do nothing” and “just watch”?

This is just getting more and more ridiculous.  Expect tonight more of this same “transparency” from the President.  I suspect the President will go on the offensive on Benghazi.   Seems his surrogates out in full force in the last 24 hours re- spinning the story, making it appear as if its Republicans who “jumped the shark”, who wouldn’t allow the White House to get their “intelligence” straight, trying to make us believe it takes weeks and weeks to ascertain what happened during an attack they were watching in real time.   Yes, expect Obama to say “we are doing an extensive investigation, which we must let take its course”.  I’m sure those investigations will “roll in” on or about November 7th, 2012.  We are in obvious re-spin mode, stall stall stall, and act angry and incensed about anyone who questions Benghazi.  Expect some more of that mock anger and indignation from Obama tonight.

Shortly after the debate, CNN’s Candy Crowley had to admit that Mitt Romney had been correct and that she had been wrong – but how wrong?

The reality of the issue is that the following Sunday, President Obama sent his U.N. Ambassadar, Susan Rice, out on Sunday shows talking about an out-of-control protest that never existed – citing a video that had nothing to do with the attack. For two weeks the administration stuck to the video and protest as the cause for the death of four Americans – something they now say was incorrect and that they knew it the second the attack happened.

On the merits of the argument, Romney is correct, but he failed in execution due to poor timeline study. Crowley was out-of-place to interject on either side, but was not necessarily wrong – the President’s Rose Garden Speech has no reference to the video or a protest, but he does talk about acts of terror.

In the President’s official statement (full transcript), he made no reference to terrorism:

“I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America’s commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya’s transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.

The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward.”

In the full transcript of the President’s Rose Garden speech the next morning, he made a general reference to “acts of terror”, but held short of calling Benghazi a terrorist attack:

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It’s especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

President Obama spent much of the debate staring down at his podium with an occasional smirk on his face while Romney looked confident and appeared genuinely interested in what Obama had to say.

The clear difference between the two men was in the conviction with which they made their statements. The President seemed out-of-sorts when talking about his own ideas and often dropped into talking-point-style attacks on Romney’s plans. Romney, however, came out with point-by-point remarks to correct the President when Obama mis-stated facts.

For the first third of the debate, Obama’s attacks centered upon repeating that Romney would cut taxes by $5 trillion. After trying a few times to correct the President, Romney said “I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true but just keep repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it. But that is not the case.”

The other major attacks from the President were still based in class warfare. Obama went straight to discussing how Romney will decrease taxes on the rich to which Romney said, “I know that you and your running mate keep saying that, and I know that’s a popular thing to say with some people, but it’s just not the case.”

Rep. Marco Rubio said of the debate that the President looked uncomfortable talking about deficits, jobs and the economy, “because he doesn’t understand those things.” At one point in the debate, the President commented on tax advantages for businesses moving facilities overseas to which Romney replied, “Look, I’ve been in business for 25 years and I have no idea what you are talking about.”

Obama tried to re-promise that he would cut the debt by $4 trillion dollars, a promise eerily similar to his 2008 promise to reduce the deficit by 50% in his first term. Romney clearly pointed out that the President was unable to achieve it in his first term and would likely fail in a second.

A tough moment for Obama came when he pointed out the $2.8 billion in tax deductions for oil companies. Romney brought up Obama’s failed investments in green energy companies where he said “In one year, you gave $90 billion in breaks to green energy companies” and that it was “50 years worth of breaks to companies like Solyndra”. As an exclamation point, Romney said that the wasn’t just picking winners and losers, but that Obama, with his investments in failing green energy companies, seemed to “just pick losers.”

Obama said that Romney’s health care replacement had no details, then went straight into discussing the details of how Romney’s plan deals with pre-existing conditions.

Probably the strongest point made by Romney was that on day one he would sit down with leaders from both parties and get things done. A direct challenge to Obama’s statement that it can’t be done from the inside. During the debate, Obama even tried to re-iterate how impossible that would be by saying that “Your’re going to be very busy on day one.” America certainly hopes so – it would be a refreshing change.

Romney did an effective job at reminding America that Obama has been president for an entire term and has achieved nothing in the way of creating jobs or helping America.

Obama was clearly out of his element. Unprotected by a friendly media, he often looked to Jim Lehrer for help and requested topic changes when getting lambasted by his Republican challenger.

Branco’s Facebook page is Cartoonist A.F.Branco

Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for President, has filed an anti-trust lawsuit in federal court against the Republican party, Democrat party, and the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), stating that the parties and CPD have violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

The suit is aimed at getting Johnson, who is the former governor of New Mexico, into the Presidential debates next month.

The lawsuit states that the CPD, which was founded by both the Democrat and Republican parties and their nominee, meets every four years to set rules for the debate in order to “hoodwink” the American people by “monopolizing the race for President and Vice-President”.

Johnson is asking the court to allow participation by all candidates who will appear on the ballot in enough states to reach 270 electoral votes.

The full complaint is below:

1.     Nearly $1 Trillion would be added to our deficit over 10 years under the Republicans’ proposal to continue tax cuts exclusively to households making more than $250,000 a year and to the wealthiest estates.

Only 1 Trillion in 10 years?  That sure is a better than Obama’s plan strapping us with over 10 Trillion more debt in the past 4 years, and much more in the next 10.  Republican tax cuts to those who are producing jobs realistically stimulate the economy.  History tells us that lower tax rates produce greater employment thus greater tax revenue 100% of the time!  Are 100% to 0% not good enough odds?

2.     Only 2 percent of American households will benefit from the Republicans’ proposal to extend tax cuts for those with incomes higher than $250,00 a year.

Actually 100% of Americans will benefit.  Those 2% are the ones investing in America and want to do more so more people can be employed, pay taxes, spend and invest.  All studies of history and economic models show that the sweet spot is about 17% across the board.  I.e. a flat tax of 17% produces the maximum revenue by allowing maximum employment and investment.  Thus we’re killing our selves by trying to squeeze more money than we can afford, which kills our ability to earn more.

3.     Under President Obama’s proposal, only the wealthiest 3 in 1,000 estates would owe any estate tax.

So only the wealthiest 0.3% will pay estate taxes?  He’s bragging about this?  Notice he doesn’t compare it to a Republican plan; a sure sign they have a better idea.

4.     Over the past 4 years, a typical family making $50,000 a year has received tax cuts totaling $3,600 – more if they are putting a child through college.

The White House fails to mention that our average income decreased 3.02% from 2008 to 2010.  For a $50K household, a loss of 3.2% is $1,600.

Inflation due to the Fed creating money, “monetizing the debt,” “QE3,” “printing money,” “digitizing money,” you name it.  Inflation was 4.46% in 2011 alone.  That has lowered the value of $50K by $2,238.

Those two factors alone add up to $3,830.  So even if your “tax decrease” was real, your average $50K family lost $283 per year.  Does the WH call these bragging rights?

They also fail to mention that he’s just Nationalized ALL student loans, (so he can forgive a great proportion of them).  That will cost “average” taxpayers more money.  So there are several ways we all pay for other people’s children to go to school.  Obama said, “those making under $250,000 won’t see a tax increase.”  Yup, they just won’t see it.

5.     5 million families would no longer be eligible for the child tax credit under the Republicans’ tax proposal.

Truth be known, both parties support a modification to the Child Tax Credit.  It is due to expire, so the debate is only which plan to adopt.

Additionally, the Treasury Department reports that illegal immigrants filing tax returns using the Individual Tax Identification Number are receiving more than $1.5 billion each year from the federal government through the Child Tax Credit and the Additional Child Tax Credit.  Need a fix?

6.     Because Republican proposals cut the Earned Income Tax Credit, nearly 6 million working families with children would see their taxes increase – averaging $500 apiece.

The WH has cherry picked only the most conservative of many Republican plans.  Many, if not most, do not affect this Credit.  In support of those that do, this Credit pays able people for not working.  We have enough of that.  What is not mentioned is that this proposal also abolishes tax code exemptions and credits for the rich and big business.  Everyone who is able needs to pay something.  It keeps us all responsibly involved in government.

7.     The President’s plan includes almost $700 billion in tax credits to help middle class families pay for health insurance over the next 10 years through the Affordable Care Act.

Somehow we’re to believe we aren’t going to pay the $700 billion.  That $700,000,000,000 comes from taxes.  How many will loose jobs because companies are forced to cut employment or go bankrupt because they have to pay fines, (oops “taxes,” oh no “fees,” wait “taxes,” whatever)?  They’ll have to pay much more just to employ people.  That isn’t going to help employment or the tax base.

Thus Obama Care will increase the number of folks relying on taxes to support them and pay for their healthcare, thus driving that 700 billion estimate off the scale.  This is a “Cloward and Piven” plan, plain and simple.  ”Overload the economic system through escalating the need for entitlements by the increased tax load to fund them.  Mr. Obama once taught the Cloward and Piven’s strategy to collapse capitalism.  Now he’s implementing it.

It has become common to name a Law the opposite of its worst feature to mask its true identity, i.e. ”The Federal Reserve” which is private and has no reserves.  Would you vote for the “Unaffordable but Compassionate Care Act”?

8.     The top 2 percent of households, with and average of $800,000, would see additional tax cuts under the Republican plan.

… as would most income brackets.  These wealthy people are already in the highest tax bracket.  This misleading information only mentions the cuts and not the main part of the plan that drastically removes tax exemptions in the first place.  Most Republican restructuring is designed not only to simplify taxes and reduce exemptions, but also to incite job creators.  Read the bills!

9.     Under the President’s plan, income tax rates for high income households would return to the same tax rates as in the ‘90s.  During that period, the United States created 23 million jobs and ran a budget surplus.

Remember the 17% rule?  Higher tax rates actually produce less revenue than lower rates above 17%.  When Bush lowered the tax rate in 2003, the tax revenue actually increased due to greater employment and higher wages.  Even Obama agreed to extend them for that reason.

It isn’t trickle down, it is flow down, and the government needs to be at the bottom of the flow, not the top.  Under the Republican plan everyone’s effective tax rate would be reduced, causing greater employment thus more tax revenue.  Businesses would be incented to locate and operate here in the US rather than overseas.

The government doesn’t create jobs, the people do.  Even government jobs are created out of the people’s tax dollars.  The government doesn’t build anything; we do, to include the government.  When the government uses our money to build inefficient, ineffective, failing, or just plain fraudulent institutions, we pay the price.

For example, the 90s is when the Liberals were most influential at inflating the housing bubble by incentives to lend to those who couldn’t afford those loans and eventually penalizing lenders that did not.  That escalated inflated prices that eventually had to burst.

10.     The President’s plan would continue the 10 percent tax bracket, which allows everyone to pay a 10 percent tax rate on their first $8,900 in income (or $17,800 for married couples).

Notice there is no mention of a Republican plan here, because under the Republican plan, middle-income families of four pay no taxes on the first $39,000 of its income.

So the President is bragging about doing nothing?  I have to admit, doing nothing has been one of his least problematic qualities.

11.     The Republicans plan eliminates the American Opportunity Tax Credit, meaning 11 million families and students paying for college would see an average tax increase of $1,000 each.

Actually there is no tax increase involved.  It means that the $1,000 credit for having a child in college expires December 31^st 2012.  Both parties have competing plans for an amended version.  Reality always sounds a little different than WH talking points.

So shall we talk about unemployment?  How about why businesses move jobs overseas?  How about Agenda 21, (disguised as “Sustainable Development)?  Can we discuss how many more doctors will be created under Obama care?  How about illegal aliens; Homeland Security that considers “we the people” a greater threat than rife illegal boarder crossings?  Let’s discuss why the US prosecutes innocent supporters of the GOP (i.e. Gibson guitar), while allowing anything black, or Muslim, or alien, or Occupy movements go unprosecuted, (per stated administration policy).  How ‘bout that Medicare?  Social Security?  Where do those fit in your list to debate?

Barack Obama was right about “Hope & Change.”  Never has America hoped for change more than now.

God bless America.

The forces against America, be they global governance, environmental extremism, communism or islamo-fascism are interwoven and inter-linked on large scale international fashion in a world made much smaller by modern technology. These forces are unrelenting. For the sake of deterrence, America must be ready, willing and equipped to fight them on each and every battlefield. A return to an eighteenth or nineteenth century foreign policy would not foster that necessary capacity. Sad to say, “progressive” Woodrow Wilson destroyed that era of American foreign policy when he entered the USA into WWI.

That being said, the defeat of barack obama remains of paramount importance.

obama and his ideologically driven co-conspirators have spent a century erecting a bureaucratic shadow government (within the EPA, the DOE, the DOI and other departments) and big government dependency programs considered by too many Americans as “entitlements”, not to mention the now obscene number of illegal “czars”. These “czars” and bureaucrats answer to the Executive Branch, not to voters. Congress has not lifted a finger to stop the erection of this illegal shadow government. Rather, over the years they have voted for it. Thanks to this shadow government, Congress is quickly becoming irrelevant. If obama is re-elected, he will not hesitate to bypass what he clearly sees as Congressional “obstruction” by exploiting that shadow government to fully implement plans to “fundamentally transform the United States of America”.

obama MUST be removed as Chief Executive.
The survival of America is at stake. obama and his Occupy sympathetic “progressive” Democratic allies are hostile to America. In order to demonstrate 100% allegiance to America and not to Occupy, vote for the GOP candidate. Since his victory in the Texas Primary ensures he will have enough delegates to win the GOP nomination, vote for Romney. Every American is urged to demonstrate their commitment to removing obama by contributing to the inevitability of his defeat by voting for Romney.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands. Do not pledge allegiance to any politician.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/why-to-vote-for-romney/

Due to an alleged violation of the national GOP’s Rule # 11 (bans favoritism of one candidate while more than one candidate exists), an Executive Committee member within the GOP calls for the resignation of RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.

First, she proved her inability to identify poor budgeting by voting for spending bills along party lines – when BOTH parties have deepened our debt.

Then she voted for the “TSA Authorization Act” in 2009 which allowed the TSA to use nude body scanners that, quote: “creates a visual image of the individual’s full body, showing the surface of the skin”.

Now, Michele Bachmann has solidified herself as a Pure Republican, Pseudoconservative with the following tweet:

Mitt Romney is just as far from being a Conservative as Barack Obama is.  For Bachmann to endorse his candidacy furthers her resume of non-conservative decisions.

Bachmann, like Allen West, must go.

—

.

That’s right, I said it.

(send all hate mail to hatemail@tjthompson.com)

And I will say it again: if Barack Obama is re-elected this November, the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of Conservatives.

WHY?

Two words: Mitt Romney.

Two more words: Rick Santorum.

And even two more: Newt Gingrich.

Real Conservatives have failed miserably at finding, recruiting, and supporting a candidate who is actually conservative.  There is nothing conservative about Mitt, Newt, and Rick.  Not their policies.  Not their records.

The biggest opponent that Mitt Romney faces is Mitt Romney.  His big government record is littered with “flip-flopping” on issues.  (See Video To The Right).

Rick Santorum’s record is pock-marked with ugliness – ranging from a detrimental record on spending in The House, to voting for The Patriot Act in 2001, to ethics violations, and then to being ousted by 18 points as an incumbent in 2006.

And Newt Gingrich?  ….how much time do we have?

How can Real Conservatives allow these things to happen?

We do not have to accept those who the The Establishment Right puts into the race.  It is our duty to realize the rotten crop that is harvested every 4 years, and then go pick our own candidate.  One who has a proven track record of doing what is right for Americans.  One who believes in small government, reduced spending, reduced debt, ending foreign wars, and restoring the Constitution.  We must never let the Establishment Right pick for us.  We must never allow the media to pick for us.

In 2012, Real Conservatives allowed The Establishment Right and The Media to choose the candidates.  With no objection.  With no retaliation.

And we will all pay the price – regardless of who wins in November.

—

Rick Santorum

.

FoxNews is reporting that after the “Super Tuesday” results, backers and supporters of Rick Santorum are pressuring former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich to drop out of the race.

According to Stuart Roy, who is an adviser to the Red, White and Blue Fund – which supports Santorum,  ”With Gingrich exiting the race it would be a true head-to-head race and conservatives would be able to make a choice between a consistent conservative in Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney.” 

.

Congressman Ron Paul

4 Candidates – 1 Candidates = 2 Candidates?

It appears that the Santorum supporters have forgotten basic mathematics.  With Gingrich out of the picture, it would leave a 3-way race with Santorum, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

Regardless of an individual’s personal opinion of Dr. Paul, one must still acknowledge that he is still in the race, he is still on ballots (Santorum & Gingrich were NOT on Virginia’s ballot), and he deserves the same level of respect as the other candidates in this contest.

—

WXIX Anchor Ben Swann

Ben Swann, a reporter from WXIX in Cincinnati, OH who is surging in national popularity, has put together a 30 minute “Reality Check” on the 4 GOP presidential candidates ahead of Super Tuesday.  The extended feature focuses on three main issues: Budgets, Gas Prices, & Iran.

Follow Ben on Facebook & Twitter

.

—