Tag Archives: Paul Ryan

How To Guarantee Four More Years of Obama

We’ve heard it said before – “it’s his race to lose.” I spent a little time earlier today, and yesterday discussing the prospects for the Romney Campaign in November with CDN’s Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl), and The 405 Radio‘s John Grant (@JohnG405) respectively. Michelle and I were relatively in agreement, that it’s too soon to call. John, on the other hand, was far more optimistic about Romney’s chances. I’m a cynic, and generally lean toward the “worst case scenario” when it comes to evaluating where a campaign is. But, in this case, my problem isn’t with the Romney Camp. It is with the conservative “base.” And I did put that term in quotes for a reason, because it certainly isn’t solid.

Rewind to fall of 1996, and I was working on a state level campaign. The problem facing the candidate was two-fold. First, he was running for a soon-to-be-vacant seat, without the endorsement of the incumbent. Second, there was bad blood in the party. One of the candidates he defeated in the primary was running a small grassroots smear campaign against him in a few precincts he was not very strong in to begin with, but needed to win. Thankfully, one of his supporters in that area called in to the office, and reported it. The other good thing was that I answered that call. When I told the candidate and the campaign manager, they both acted like it was nothing. I ignored their assessment, and put a few extra bodies on the streets in those neighborhoods. At the victory party, someone started talking about how great it was that the candidate squeaked by in those precincts – that it clinched the race. I just laughed, and walked outside with my scotch and cigar in hand.

And here we are in 2012, facing the same sort of issue. This is convention week, and the GOP should be building enthusiasm and consolidating behind Romney. Even better, the Libertarians should be mending fences with the GOP, and Ron Paul should be calling for his followers to support Romney as well. After all, the bottom line is that no matter how much anyone on the right disagrees with Romney, they should be agreeing with him a hell of a lot more than they agree with Obama. And every vote that isn’t cast at all, or isn’t cast for Romney, is as good as a vote for Obama. (It’s all in the math, folks. Don’t forget how Ralph Nader and the Green Party were perennially a thorn in the side of the Dems.)

Yes, we may not like Romney, but he’s the man on the ballot. That will be made official tonight. The time for playing games is over. If you think for a second that the Dems wouldn’t be in lockstep behind their candidate if they weren’t seeking a second term in the White House, you’re bluntly insane. And that is how you win elections. But this is supposed to be about how to lose this one for Romney, isn’t it?

Romney is a socialist? Really? For the record here, I did a Twitter search for RINO, since that’s the favorite term being bandied about by rabble-rousers out there. This breaks one of the biggest rules when it comes to campaigns – there is no reason for anyone that is against Obama having a second term to be out there criticizing Romney, period. Yeah, I can just hear the screams of foul on that one, and self-righteous claims to First Amendment rights. I’m not talking censorship here folks. I am talking political survival. It’s real simple. If you don’t want four more years of Obama, then shut up about Romney until after November. Rip him to shreds if you like, the day after he ousts Obama. But until then, nada!

Now, I like Condi, so she got the attention here. Well, that and the fact that it seemed the majority of the Twitter venom was being aimed at her. Another big rule being broken here, when it comes to winning political campaigns – never beat on the mouthpieces! She’s a Romney surrogate, so she’s off-limits for criticism during the campaign. Again, this isn’t about censorship. Ask yourselves, before you start saying nasty things about GOP folks right now: “Do I really want to help the Obama Camp discredit Romney and win the election?” Put it on a post-it note on your computer monitors if you have to, but seriously think about it before you run loose ripping on GOP surrogates on the campaign trail. There are still fence-pole sitters out there, and you’re not going to do anything to convince them to agree with you if you can’t even manage to respect the people out there campaigning for “anyone but Obama.” Yeah, that’s for the benefit of the folks that have trouble stomaching Romney in the first place. Remember, we can’t afford four more years!

So, no picking on the right-wing. Save your venom for the real enemy. Have at it against Obama and his zombies. It’s not like there’s any shortage of targets. Ridicule the vagina women and Sandra Fluke. Get your jollies over the fact that the DNC had to downsize their convention from lack of interest in the events, while the RNC went on in spite of Isaac! Think about like those food guru books “eat this, not that” if you have to. Call out leftists on low blows against conservatives. Don’t run around attacking conservatives. And by “conservative” I mean anyone dedicated to even a small part of the conservative principles. Take it further, and include anyone dedicated to removing Obama from office – that is the goal. The infighting will win the election for Obama. That is a fact. We all know that the Dem playbook starts and ends with “divide and conquer.” Stop doing half the job for the Dems! Suck it up, support Romney, and get Obama the hell off of Pennsylvania Avenue! Send him back to Chicago, Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or wherever else the bastard wants to go!

There’s your mantra folks – let’s roll!

Romney/Ryan Medicare Plan Would Cost Seniors $6400: Debunked

Per Politico, here’s the analysis of the latest Obama campaign attack ad towards Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan on Medicare:

(AP)

“It’s a promise that was made long ago: you work hard, pay in, your Medicare benefits are guaranteed. But Mitt Romney would break that promise,” the ad says. “Replace your benefits with a voucher. Insurance companies could just keep raising rates. Instead of a guarantee, seniors could pay $6,400 more a year.”

The claim that the Romney/Ryan plan would cost seniors $6400 is completely false and based on an outdated and questionable Medicare reform plan from Rep. Paul Ryan – the plan that Romney and Ryan actually support does not include any cost increases for seniors. Ramesh Ponnuru explained all of this in a Bloomberg column, the day that it was announced Ryan would be Romney’s running mate.

Under the original Ryan plan, retirees would have chosen a private health plan and the government would have contributed money toward the cost. The amount of money would have depended on the beneficiary’s age and health status. Over time the average amount of money would have risen with inflation.

Critics pointed out that health-care costs have risen faster than inflation for a long time. If competition failed to change this trend, senior citizens would indeed have been left paying more.

The new version of the plan cleverly fixes the problem. Insurers would submit competitive bids to see who could cover Medicare’s traditional benefits for the lowest premium. The average amount of financial assistance would be equal to the second-lowest bid. So seniors will always have an option that leaves them with no higher costs than now. If they pick something even cheaper, they will come out ahead.

Ryan’s budget includes a failsafe to make sure the plan saves money even if competition doesn’t lead to restraint in premium growth: Total spending on Medicare would be limited to the growth of the economy plus inflation plus 0.5 percent.

That failsafe doesn’t rescue the Democratic attack, however, because the Obama administration caps Medicare spending at the same level. There is no scenario under which Medicare recipients have to pay more under the Romney-Ryan plan than they have to pay under the Democratic plan. The Obama campaign is, in short, responding to new thinking with stale talking points.

If that isn’t enough to convince you, then read this recent memo released by the Romney campaign debunking the claim.

Follow Chris on Twitter

Debunking 5 Paul Ryan Myths

When Mitt Romney chose Rep. Paul Ryan to be his running mate nine days ago, he forced Democrats to engage in serious intellectual debate in the coming weeks and months, rather than demagoguing which has been the main practice of the Obama/Biden campaign as of yet.

Paul Ryan holds his Plan, The Path to American Prosperity

Well, that’s what one would have thought, because, well, conventional wisdom says so. However, in the latter, Democrats and the left have tried to demonize Paul Ryan in every way absolutely imaginable. The day after the announcement of Paul Ryan to be the running-mate of Mitt Romney, the attacks started. From Ryan’s budget, to a ‘war on women’, to Ryan ‘pushing grandma off of the cliff’, let’s debunk five myths about Paul Ryan.

1. The Ryan Plan Destroys Medicare.

The Liberal New York Congressman, Rep. Steve Israel has recently claimed that the Romney/Ryan ticket is a “nightmare for seniors who’ve earned their Medicare benefits. For the last 18 months, we’ve said Republicans will have to defend the indefensible—their vote to end Medicare.” The Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been running around spewing lies claiming that the Ryan Plan would end Medicare as we know it. This wouldn’t be the first time that Schultz has lied, or probably the last. Look at what she said regarding presidential tax returns and Mitt Romney.

The Wyden-Ryan Medicare Plan – yes that is Democratic Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon – says that the plan will not affect anyone over 55. Anyone over 55 wouldn’t see a change in their plans or their benefits. Anyone under 55 wouldn’t either, unless they voluntarily chose to take part in the Plan. Washington would still be paying the premiums for the healthcare choices you made, and if you believed in the basic principles of free-market capitalism, this would improve the services while driving down the cost.

Furthermore, the liberal leaning Urban Institute recently found that the average citizen will pay $149,000 in Medicare taxes, while only taking out $351,000 in medical services during retirement. In reality, the party that doesn’t want to reform Medicare, and who doesn’t want to ‘change Medicare as we know it’, is single-handedly destroying the system from the inside out.

2. Paul Ryan is a Constitutional Obstructionist

According to a recent Gallup Poll, the 112th Congress’ approval rating has hit an all-time low. Of course, Obama, his administration, and his campaign blame the GOP for the gridlock in Congress, which may we not forget; Paul Ryan is a part of. It’s not necessarily fair, considering the House has passed massive amount of bills that focus on economic recovery that have been killed by Harry Reid in the Senate. May we also not forget that, a) Obama’s ‘serious’ budget was rejected by everyone in both the House and the Senate, and b) Ryan’s Budget passed the House by a vote of  228-191.

Contrary to what the President said yesterday during his surprise visit to the press room of the White House, he is stepping across the preverbal line ‘in the sand’. “So, if you happen to see Congressman Ryan, tell him how important this farm bill is to Iowa and our rural communities. It’s time to put politics aside and pass it right away,” the President said last week in Iowa. But in fact, the House has already passed a measure that helps farmers that have been struck financially by the drought.

3. The Ryan Budget is Extreme

President Obama’s Campaign Manager, Jim Messina, someone who probably actually hasn’t sat down and read the Ryan Plan, is calling the plan ‘radical’.

New York Times Columnist, Paul Krugman, is spewing the common lies about the Ryan Plan. He said the plan, “would kill people, no question,” while the Plan would “cut discretionary spending to levels not seen since Calvin Coolidge.” In defense of Coolidge, life wasn’t that bad under his leadership – low taxation, high economic growth and relative peace. But, to anyone’s surprise, this isn’t true. The Ryan Plan only brings back non-military discretionary spending to the 2008 levels. The plan also cuts the federal bureaucracy and it’s subsidies by 10% and it reforms the compensation plans of federal employees.

But when we talk about discretionary spending as a percentage of the entire budget, you don’t have to be an economic genius to know that Krugman does have a point, but a very misleading one at that. Because mandatory spending has grown at about six times that of discretionary spending over the past 20 years, it’s really easy to argue that President Obama will keep discretionary spending at levels not seen since Calvin Coolidge – anyone could.

However, there are a lot of Conservatives that aren’t exactly in love with the Ryan Budget. For one, it balances the budget over ten years versus the Connie-Mac Penny Plan which balances the budget over eight years. Don’t we know that anything a president implements that expands past his time in office, usually never completely comes to fruition? Meaning, I seriously doubt that the Ryan Budget would make it all ten years.

Moreover, the Ryan Plan only reduces spending from current levels of 24% down to 19.8% of the GDP. Several leading economists have pointed out that this would only bring down federal expenditures to post-WWII levels. Furthermore, in the Ryan Budget federal spending increases over the next ten years, and revenue each year after. The budget would expand from $3.6 trillion in 2013 to $4.9 trillion in 2022.

4. Ryan is at ‘War with Women’

Didn’t we all see this one coming? It’s a classic ‘hail mary’ out of the playbook of the left against anyone on the right. Democratic Pennsylvania Congressman Patrick Murphy said that Ryan “believes we should ban all birth control as well. He voted for that.” The President of NARAL Pro-Choice America, Nancy Keenan, said that Ryan “supported the ‘Let Women Die Bill,’ which would allow hospitals to refuse to provide a woman emergency, lifesaving abortion care, even if she could die without it.”

Gosh, Ryan really does hate woman, right? Wrong. Ryan has never voted or said any of these things that he is being accused of. However, he did vote for the “Protect Life Act,” which would have, if it passed, rewritten provisions in Obamacare that allowed for federal subsidies to be provided for abortions. Ironic, because liberals and the left already claim that the government doesn’t fund abortions. “Protect Life Act,” also had a provision that exempted Catholic hospitals from having to pay for contraception or abortions. He also supported a bill that would have dulled the HHS Mandate that Catholic hospitals provide free condoms.

5. Ryan’s Plan Favors the Rich

Another classic play from the playbook of those on the left – class warfare. A day on the campaign trail just wouldn’t be right with a little class warfare. Many on the left have claimed that Romney “chose a leader of the House Republicans who shares his commitment” of a “new budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy…”

Regardless of what you will hear from Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton or an Obama SuperPAC add, there are absolutely zero special tax cuts in the Ryan Budget ‘for the wealthy’. Common sense tells you that when Washington enacts across-the-board tax reform, the rich (who already pay the vast majority of the taxes) are likely to benefit. Ryan’s Plan however, only supports keeping the current tax rates that we’ve had for the last decade – one’s that a lot on the left have also supported.

What the Ryan plan does do is simplify our tax system. We currently have a six-bracket tax system. Under the Ryan Plan, this would be simplified to two tax brackets – the lower bracket being a 10% bracket, and the upper bracket being a 25% bracket. This plan fixes the Alternative Minimum Tax, and cuts corporate tax rates to reflect those of other competitive nations to the U.S. Ryan and Romney both also support closing loopholes that wealthy Americans disproportionally use.

 

Follow me on Twitter: @chrisenloe

Paul Ryan’s Defense Of 2008-2009 Votes

One of the big questions since Mitt Romney selected Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as is running mate is whether it would bring in small government conservatives and libertarians on the Romney bandwagon. Ryan is well-liked by people due to his “Roadmap For America’s Future” and his 2009 verbal destruction of Obamacare to the President’s face.

There are still a few questions regarding Ryan’s voting record in the House. He supported TARP, the auto bailout and the taxes on AIG bonuses. He also supported the NDAA and the PATRIOT Act. These are things conservatives and libertarians don’t support because they expand government power and ended up supporting crony capitalism.

Ryan’s defense of the some of these votes are very interesting. In a 2010 interview with The Daily Caller, Ryan points out voted against the original auto bailout because he didn’t want them to get the money. His reasoning for eventually voting for the bailout was because it was limited money at $17.4 billion.  As Ryan put it, he was concerned it would become a “slush fund” with no limit if it were connected to TARP. It’s a strange reason, considering that Ryan eventually voted for TARP, however he deserves a bit a credit for his original no vote.

The vote Ryan probably regrets the most, is the one to put a tax on the AIG bonuses. It’s a key example of politicians reacting to a situation, instead of responding to it.  Ryan himself admits he was angry and made a “snap judgement” on the bill. He makes a good point at saying TARP was becoming a new avenue of crony capitalism. This has been pointed out several times in Peter Schweizer’s book, “Throw Them All Out,” which everyone should read. It’s nice Ryan says he made a mistake, even if hindsight is 20/20.

The decision to vote for TARP is one of the most interesting, and logical, defenses out there.  Ryan says it was to keep an even bigger government agenda from sweeping the nation, as well as, preventing a Depression. His key worry was to keep from happening, “a complete evisceration of the free market system we have…” This argument is actually something not many politicians have used.

In fact, it sounds a bit like the justification behind the Louisiana Purchase.

According to Harlow Unger’s book on President James Monroe called “The Last Founding Father,” President Thomas Jefferson wanted Monroe to tell the Spanish and French what American traders believe about New Orleans and Louisiana. As Jefferson said, “They have a natural…right to trade freely through the Mississippi,” and authorized $9 million to buy New Orleans. Congress authorized only $2 million. Monroe ended up paying $15 million.

Jefferson wasn’t sure whether to approve the purchase because he believed it violated the Constitution. As Unger writes, he apparently had problems the Constitution, “did not grant the government authority to acquire foreign territory…” Jefferson decided to approve the measure because Napoleon was going to back out of the sale.

Ryan’s defense of the TARP bill sounds a bit Jefferson’s defense of the Louisiana Purchase. Both sacrificed their constitutional beliefs to make sure something worse didn’t happen. In Jefferson’s case it was losing out on Louisiana and New Orleans and possibly never getting a shot at it again. In Ryan’s case, it sounds he was worried about another New Deal coming which would have increased the government even more.

It’s not an argument most of the Tea Party would agree with, but Ryan does a better job at saying why TARP should have been passed than John Boehner does.

Someone should ask Ryan about his votes for the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA. This type of information is important and we need to hear why Ryan did what he did.

To steal a line from Dan McLaughlin, Paul Ryan is a good pick for Mitt Romney because, while he’s not a complete Tea Party pick, he does hold more Tea Party values than Chris Christie. He’s also got a defined budget which isn’t perfect, but better than what the Democrats have. Which is nothing.

Romney/Ryan Ticket Gains Support Amongst Young Americans

A recent Zogby poll has received a considerable amount of attention, which shows the new Republican ticket of Romney/Ryan pulling an impressive 41% of young voters between the ages of 18 to 29, while the Democratic ticket of Obama/Biden only pulled 49%. This is a considerable gain by Republicans, considering that during the 2008 election cycle, Obama/Biden won the vote of 66% of young voters.

Paul Ryan, the 2012 Republican Vice President Candidate

A considerable amount of this surge amongst young voters for Romney can be attributed to his youthful running mate, whom is the first of his generation to make it onto a major party national ticket. But don’t stop at this single poll. A poll that received far less notice from the liberal PPP group came out with the exact same results: 41% of young voters said they supported Romney, while just 49% of young voters supported Obama/Biden. In this same survey, young voters disapproved of President Obama’s performance in office, 57% to 37%, and an astonishing 75% of those polled said they thought the country was heading into the ‘wrong direction’.

Generation Opportunity, a conservative group that reaches out to young conservatives and Americans alike, has recently reported that the unemployment rate among young people is substantially higher than the national average – 12.7% of young people are unemployed compared to the ‘mere’ 8.3% national average. Generation Opportunity also noted that 1.7 million young Americans aren’t even being counted in those statistics, because they have completely abandoned the workforce all together.

But are we even getting the whole story? What isn’t being reported about Obamanomics is that the majority of the job ‘growth’ is coming from part-time and temporary jobs, while unemployment of full-time workers continues to skyrocket. This makes it even harder on entry-level workers, most of which hold a college degree and are young Americans, as they are competing with people that have much experience in the workforce.

It has also been found that a majority of young Americans are cynical about Big Government social safety-net programs such as Social Security and Medicare, and rightly so. Young Americans realize that there isn’t much of a chance that those programs are going to be

around when they reach retirement, unless dramatic changes are made to the system. Some young people just accept their loss, but others are realizing that they are on the wrong side of massive debt, instability, and an ailing country.

With all of this being said, why does the Obama/Biden ticket still have the support of the majority of young Americans? It might have to do with the “happy, go-lucky” feel a young person gets when they are told if they share their wealth a little, it will decrease poverty. Maybe it’s because the American college system is infiltrated with liberalism and progressivism. But for any reason, this point in the election has marked a stark improvement for Republicans amongst the youth in America.

 

Follow me on Twitter: @chrisenloe

Paul Ryan Has Proved to be a Great Addition to the Republican Ticket

The addition of Paul Ryan to the Republican ticket has sure proved to be a great decision by Mitt Romney and his campaign. Since the announcement just six days ago, ‘America’s Comeback Team’ has produced states like these:

‘America’s Comeback Team’ Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan

Online Fundraising
Donations: 124,800+
Amount: $10,157,947
Average Donation: $81
% New Donors: 68%

Site Traffic
Total: 2,000,000
Desktop: 1,560,000
Mobile: 440,000

Mitt Romney Social
Facebook: +510,000 — Now 4,360,000
Twitter: +54,000 — Now 861,000

Paul Ryan Social
Facebook: +860,000
Twitter: +118,500

Volunteers
45,000+ sign up to volunteer online

“Tomorrow marks a week since Mitt Romney announced his choice of Congressman Paul Ryan to join him on America’s Comeback Team and it’s clear that his choice has reshaped the race in a positive way. The Obama team’s increasing vitriol is a sure sign that they’re rattled by the pick,” Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades released in a memo Friday.

 

Follow me on Twitter: @chrisenloe

Petition supports Sarah Palin America’s Heartland speech At GOP Convention

Send the RNC and the Romney campaign a message and sign the petition to “Let Sarah Speak.”

 

What is America’s mainstream republican leadership in the RNC or the Mitt Romney presidential campaign afraid of, by not letting Sarah Palin take the podium?

Are they in dread that Sarah Palin will wow the convention and America by drawing from her deep well of passionate and fervent feelings for America’s families suffering in the heartland? Does the Romney campaign feel somehow skittish that she will make a better case against Obama’s growing nightmarish handling of America’s economy and his intentional goal to undermine the U.S. constitution, than Romney or Ryan can? There are a lot of questions but no real honest answers available.

One answer to this lingering campaign non-commitment, is a petition supporting Palin speaking at the convention. You can sign and circulate it, to show your support for her continued conservative leadership and need to speak at the upcoming GOP Convention. Supporting her is a matter of principle not political gamesmanship. Let your principles and voice be heard.

After all, Governor Palin’s leadership has been, and continues to be genuine, principled, and unselfish. She has forgone the insider politics as usual approach, and instead has embraced the Tea Party’s inclusiveness and grassroots focus on conservative issues and solutions that have been neglected by the glad handing backroom political deal makers of either party.

So forgive Sarah Palin if her tireless campaigning for the past several years has been to build a new sense of political, social and fiscal issue empowerment that translates into real grassroots power. It seem that since the epicenter of power has shifted from Washington D.C., the liberal pundits and certain GOP elected officials have decided that Palin’s commitment to grassroots political power is both something to be feared as well as neutralized.

Now is not the time for Romney and Ryan to head into a presidential campaign battle with their fingers crossed hoping that Palin’s conservative supporters will somehow transfer their support for her to the GOP team, because of Ryan’s vice presidential selection.

This notion misses the point completely. Leadership and rallying troops is not like trading horses. This is not a time for political games playing. President Obama has launched an all out assault upon the American Constitution, and he has shown that he will take it apart piece by piece, with executive orders as often as he deems necessary. In battle, you don’t leave a field general at home in war, because you fear her command leadership will outshine you. This is war for America’s future not a beauty contest!

After this presidential election has long been logged into the annuals of digital history, those who will inherit the results of this election will either live in a nation severely economically and constitutionally diminished or a nation rescued from the brink of socialism and biblical principle abandonment.

In 1976, then, Governor Ronald Reagan understood the need to fight to preserve an America, 100 years from then.

At that time, President Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan had fought for the presidential nomination, which President Ford won. Instead of being bitter about the political combat and preventing Reagan from taking the convention podium, President Ford offered Reagan the opportunity to speak to an America that was in crisis.

Reagan’s speech added to the energy of the convention and helped to set into motion a new and refreshed vibrancy within the conservative movement.

Ronald Reagan reminded the convention attendees and America that in 2076, no one at present would know what kind of a world Americans will inherit. He said, “Will they look back with appreciation and say, ‘Thank God for those people in 1976 who headed off that loss of freedom, who kept us now 100 years later free, who kept our world from nuclear destruction’?… This is our challenge; and this is why here in this hall tonight, better than we have ever done before, we have got to quit talking to each other and about each other and go out and communicate to the world that we may be fewer in numbers than we have ever been, but we carry the message they are waiting for.”

Sarah Palin is carrying the message that millions in America’s heartland are waiting for. An election is won with more than a focus on numbers and budgets or hundreds of millions of dollars spent on television attack ads.

It is won in the grassroots campaign trenches found in Ohio counties and Pennsylvania coal fields and in the farmlands of Iowa, Indiana and Illinois and in the kitchens of homes in Texas, Colorado, Michigan, Florida and so many others. Sarah has been in the trenches and has worked tirelessly for the election of Tea Party backed conservative leaders like congressman Allen West of Florida, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, U.S. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, and many, many others.

Let her remind America at the convention, of the fierce urgency of now. As President Ronald Reagan eloquently stated, “Let us be sure that those who come after will say of us in our time, that in our time we did everything that could be done. We finished the race; we kept them free; we kept the faith.”

Sarah is keeping the faith for everyone in the nation’s heartland for the present and America’s future.

You can actually help to “Let Sarah Speak” by sending the RNC and the Romney campaign a message and sign the petition to “Let Sarah Speak.” Conservatives can send a message that like Reagan, you want to keep the faith for your family and America’s future. Help get the word out to other conservatives and let Sarah Speak. Click here to sign the petition. Its not over until it is over!

Write and let me know what you think!:   http://shar.es/vLSW8

 

 

 

 

In Deep with Michelle Ray

When: Thursday, August 16th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: In Deep with Michelle Ray on Blog Talk Radio

What: Join Social Media Director of ConservativeDailyNews.com, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.

Tonight:Tonight: Conservative rockers Madison Rising chat about their new album and Kickstarter project and we debunk the idea that Paul Ryan’s policies are influenced by Ayn Rand.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

MoveOn Attacks Ryan With Lies

Here is the latest from MoveOn.org in the lie filled institutionalized “progressive” left’s smear campaign against Rep. Paul Ryan.  How does MoveOn expect anyone outside their ever shrinking “progressive” echo chamber think-alike tank to take them seriously? Not only are the assertions about Paul Ryan based on misrepresentations, distortions and outright falsehoods, the only “supportive evidence” provided are links to MoveOn.org and other “progressive” sites like Center for American Progress (funded by George Soros), Think Progress, Daily Kos, Huffington Post and The Advocate.  There is no question that the link sites are clearly biased in favor of “progressives” and are heartily devoted to spreading “progressive” propaganda.

If this is not a clear cut case of “I’m right because I said so” vapidity then 2 + 2 does not equal 4.

MoveOn even lies to its own people by saying MoveOn gets no big checks from CEOs.  Apparently they count on membership from uninformed people who have never heard of the huge donations MoveOn has received over the years from billionaire George Soros.

Below is the text as sent out in an email by MoveOn:

Dear MoveOn member,

Paul Ryan is bad for America. He’s anti-choice, and would give big tax cuts for millionaires, while raising taxes on the middle-class. He’s a Tea Party favorite who takes donations from the billionaire Koch brothers, and he introduced one of harshest and most inhumane budgets in recent history. His ideological hero for many years called selfishness a virtue and charity an abomination.

But most people don’t know just how bad Paul Ryan is. So we made this list of 10 things to know about Mitt Romney’s Vice Presidential pick, Paul Ryan. Read it, then click here to share this list as an image on social media, or just forward this email! The future of America is on the line—from a woman’s right to choose to our economy.

10 Things to know about Paul Ryan

1. His economic plan would cost America 1 million jobs in the first year. Ryan’s proposed budget would cripple the economy. He’d slash spending deeply, which would not only slow job growth, but shock the economy and cost 1 million of us our jobs in 2013 alone and kill more than 4 million jobs by the end of 2014.1

2. He’d kill Medicare. He’d replace Medicare with vouchers for retirees to purchase insurance, eliminating the guarantee of health care for seniors and putting them at the mercy of the private insurance industry. That could amount to a cost increase of more than $5,900 by 2050, leaving many seniors broke or without the health care they need. He’d also raise the age of eligibility to 67.2

3. He’d pickpocket the middle class to line the pockets of the rich. His tax plan is Robin Hood in reverse. He wants to cut taxes by $4.6 trillion over the next decade, but only for corporations and the rich, like giving families earning more than $1 million a year a $300,000 tax cut. And to pay for them, he’d raise taxes on middle- and lower-income households and butcher social service programs that help middle- and working-class Americans.3

4. He’s an anti-choice extremist. Ryan co-sponsored an extremist anti-choice bill, nicknamed the ‘Let Women Die Act,’ that would have allowed hospitals to deny women emergency abortion care even if their lives were at risk. And he co-sponsored another bill that would criminalize some forms of birth control, all abortions, and in vitro fertilization.4

5. He’d dismantle Social Security. Ironically, Ryan used the Social Security Survivors benefit to help pay for college, but he wants to take that possibility away from future generations. He agrees with Rick Perry’s view that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme” and he supported George W. Bush’s disastrous proposal to privatize Social Security.5

6. He’d eliminate Pell grants for more than 1 million low-income students. His budget plan cuts the Pell Grant program by $200 billion, which could mean a loss of educational funding for 1 million low-income students.6

7. He’d give $40 billion in subsidies to Big Oil. His budget includes oil tax breaks worth $40 billion, while cutting “billions of dollars from investments to develop alternative fuels and clean energy technologies that would serve as substitutes for oil.”7

8. He’s another Koch-head politician. Not surprisingly, the billionaire oil-baron Koch brothers are some of Ryan’s biggest political contributors. And their company, Koch industries, is Ryan’s biggest energy-related donor. The company’s PAC and affiliated individuals have given him $65,500 in donations.8

9. He opposes gay rights. Ryan has an abysmal voting record on gay rights. He’s voted to ban adoption by gay couples, against same-sex marriage, and against repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell.” He also voted against the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which President Obama signed into law in 2009.9

10. He thinks an “I got mine, who cares if you’re okay” philosophy is admirable. For many years, Paul Ryan devoted himself to Ayn Rand’s philosophy of selfishness as a virtue. It has shaped his entire ethic about whom he serves in public office. He even went as far as making his interns read her work.10

If there was ever any doubt that Mitt Romney’s got a disastrous plan for America—he made himself 100% clear when he picked right-wing extremist Paul Ryan as his running mate. Paul Ryan is bad for America, but we can’t beat him if Americans don’t know everything he stands for. Share this list with all your friends by clicking here, or simply forward this email.

Thanks for all you do.

–Justin, Carrie, Steven, Stephen, and the rest of the team

Sources:

1. “Ryan’s Budget, Robin Hood in reverse,” Economic Policy Institute
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=278939&id=48819-18317182-fpqNWbx&t=4

2. “12 Things You Should Know About Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan,” Think Progress, August 11, 2012
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=278662&id=48819-18317182-fpqNWbx&t=5

3.”Ryan Budget Would Raise Some Taxes; Guess Who Gets Hit?,” Off the Charts, April 12, 2012 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=278692&id=48819-18317182-fpqNWbx&t=6

“Middle class could face higher taxes under Republican plan, analysis finds,” The Washington Post, June 19, 2012
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=278693&id=48819-18317182-fpqNWbx&t=7

4. “Statement on Mitt Romney’s Selection of Rep. Paul Ryan for His Vice-Presidential Running Mate,” NARAL, August 11, 2012
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=278694&id=48819-18317182-fpqNWbx&t=8

“Paul Ryan’s Extreme Abortion Views,” The Daily Beast, August 11, 2012
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=278695&id=48819-18317182-fpqNWbx&t=10

“Paul Ryan Sponsored Fetal Personhood Bill, Opposes Family Planning Funds,” Huffington Post, August 11, 2012
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=278852&id=48819-18317182-fpqNWbx&t=12

5. “12 Things You Should Know About Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan,” Think Progress, August 11, 2012
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=278662&id=48819-18317182-fpqNWbx&t=13

“Ayn Rand would have HATED Paul Ryan,” Daily Kos, August 12, 2012
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=278853&id=48819-18317182-fpqNWbx&t=14

6. “Pell Grants For Poor Students Lose $170 Billion In Ryan Budget,” Huffington Post, March 27, 2012
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=278696&id=48819-18317182-fpqNWbx&t=15

7. “Ryan Budget Pads Big Oil’s Pockets with Senseless Subsidies,” Center for American Progress, March 20, 2012
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=278697&id=48819-18317182-fpqNWbx&t=16

8. “Koch brothers have Paul Ryan’s back,” Politico, August 11, 2012
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=278940&id=48819-18317182-fpqNWbx&t=17

9. “Paul Ryan as VP Matches Mitt Romney on Homophobia,” The Advocate, August 11, 2012
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=278698&id=48819-18317182-fpqNWbx&t=18

10.”Paul Ryan And Ayn Rand”, The New Republic, December 28, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=278699&id=48819-18317182-fpqNWbx&t=19

Want to support our work? We’re entirely funded by our 7 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.


PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/moveon-attacks-ryan-with-lies/

Democrats Pushing Grandma Off Cliff By Ignoring Facts

First, it’s baffling that advocating for reform of a broken system is anathema to liberals.  I’ve never met anyone who is against efficiency. Second, who cares if the right tried to ‘end medicare as we know it.’  Emancipation from wasteful government entitlement programs is inherently moral and enhances the freedom of the American people.  However, those are the hypotheticals.  These are the facts.

As Jim Geraghty of NRO reported today, it’s “shocking” the health care costs have gone up under Obama:

Health insurance costs for families are up considerably: “Kaiser’s survey found that annual insurance premiums to cover people through their employers average $5,429 for single people and $15,073 for a family of four in 2011. Those rates rose 8 percent for single people and 9 percent for families. In 2010, premiums rose just 3 percent for families from the previous year.”

Then there’s the price hikes in the current year: “The cost to cover the typical family of four under an employer plan is expected to top $20,000 on health care this year, up more than 7 percent from last year, according to early projections by independent actuarial and health care consulting firm Milliman Inc.”

PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Health Research Institute projects medical costs will increase 7.5 percent for 2013, a rate they characterize as “relatively flat growth.” The National Business Group on Health projects a similar figure: “With the cost of employer-provided health care benefits at large U.S. employers expected to rise another 7 percent next year, employers are eyeing a variety of cost-control measures including asking workers to pay a greater portion of premiums but also sharply boosting financial rewards to engage workers in healthy lifestyles, according to a new survey by the National Business Group on Health, a non-profit association of 342 large employers.”

How could this have happened?  Didn’t we spend nearly a trillion dollars to make sure these hikes in costs didn’t occur? Oh wait–now I remember.  The Obama administration ignored the demands of the people to control costs and decided to increase coverage instead and mandated that those who don’t buy insurance will be taxed.  I guess Obama’s policy wonks, a term I use loosely, missed the Cato study showing that all states have created nearly 1900 mandates on benefits coverages.  The result was an incremental increase in health care costs. It didn’t work at the state level.  It won’t work with a federal mandate steroids.

Medicare and other costs in health care are certainly the focal point when it comes to getting our fiscal house in order. We must also understand that when these programs were instituted competent medicine was never factored into the equation.  The average length of time between retirement and death was two years.  That has now increased by two decades. For the next two decades–10,000 baby boomers will become eligible receive Medicare and Social Security benefits in their respective states.  In addition, the very elderly, people who are 85 or older, as a percentage, is the fastest growing demographic in the United States.  A lot of these people are living with chronic illnesses that would have wiped them out ten to fifteen years ago.  With the dismal statistics eventually showing a paltry 2.1 workers supporting each retiree, it’s time for liberals to recognize that reform is needed.

Instead, they demonize Republicans for trying to get Medicare and health care costs under control via free market reforms.  I think the depraved reality is that liberals would rather see grandma go off the cliff than sacrifice the last bastion of liberal social achievement. An achievement that was temporary– which is the case with most socialist initiatives.  However, in light of the data showing the ‘graying’ of America, the left has resorted to misinforming the public.  Otherwise known as MediSCARING– which was demonstrated by the president when he addressed a crowd in Iowa this week.

As Carol E. Lee of the Wall Street Journal reported today, the president reiterated his Davy Crockett stance on the issue.  “I have strengthened Medicare, Mr. Obama told a crowd of 3,000 people on the last of his three days in Iowa on a campaign swing. He said Mr. Romney and his running mate, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, would turn Medicare into a voucher program that could cost seniors $6,400 more a year…their plan ends Medicare as we know it, Mr. Obama said.”

However, Phil Kerpin wrote today that:

Obama has already cut $716 billion from Medicare to fund his new health care entitlement, and would cap Medicare growth going forward at the rate of GDP growth plus 0.5 percent. Those cuts will run into the trillions of dollars in the second decade under Obama’s program, and will be implemented principally by turning over control of health care decisions to bureaucrats who will be empowered to deny people the care they need.

The Ryan plan implements the same cap on overall Medicare spending, but achieves it by injecting individual choice and competition into the program, allowing patients to choose between traditional fee-for-service Medicare and competing private plans.

However, according to Andres Ramirez, Vice-Chair of the DNC Hispanic Caucus, those cuts are “not necessary or essential in the Medicare budget.”

Whatever happened to the president’s call for a serious conversation about this subject? Well, when you re-election bid is marred by a failed health care reform , increased debt, and unemployment remaining above 8% for over 40 straight months, you have to misinform  your way back into office–even if it means your policies push grandma off the cliff.  It’s all relative.  That’s liberal thinking 101.  In all, I find it sickening that liberals would sacrifice an entire demographic for political points and plunge this nation into fiscal ruin.  Some say the Tea Party did that with the debt ceiling crisis last summer, but that’s a frivolous assessment.  We never would have reached that point if liberal Democrats and squishy Republicans didn’t engage in their orgy of spending.  The Tea Party was trying to save the nation, which Obama is certainly not interested in doing in the slightest.

P.S. Democrats should note that seniors were Romney’s biggest supporters in Florida.  However, we’ll have to see how they respond to Paul Ryan. Nevertheless, it points to the fact that even seniors understand the perils our entitlement system is facing.

A. Quinnipiac (July) ALL VOTERS: Obama 51% Romney 45%

Seniors: Romney 56% Obama 41%

B. Survey USA (July) ALL VOTERS: Obama 48% Romney 43%

Seniors: Romney 53% Obama 43%

C. Mason-Dixon (July) ALL VOTERS: Obama 46% Romney 45%

Seniors: Romney 47% Obama 42%

D. Quinnipiac (May) ALL VOTERS: Romney 44% Obama 43%

Seniors: Romney 49% Obama 37%

E. Fox News (April) ALL VOTERS: Obama 45% Romney 43%

Seniors: Romney 52% Obama 40%

Cross-posted at RightWingNews

MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts Shamefully Exploits Teen Girls to Slam Ryan Vote on Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

Thomas Roberts

Towards the close of today’s MSNBC Live, anchor Thomas Roberts presented a segment featuring three New Jersey teenage girls who started a petition on the left-leaning Change.org website demanding female moderators for the upcoming presidential debates.  The young ladies succeeded in getting 180,000 signatures for their initiative.

But rather than simply hailing their civic activism, Roberts decided to expoloit these girls to slam Rep. Paul Ryan over his no vote for the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act — which does nothing to equalize pay for women but simply expanded the statute of limitations to file suit in court — by saying “do you think he’s going to have a tough time defending his no vote to Martha Radditz when he gets asked about that?”

Elena Simbears, one of the teens featured, said “I mean, I think so. It’s really disappointing for many women to know that they don’t have the support of someone who can possibly be leading our country and women still have such a long way to go. That is just a step backwards.”

I’m afraid to inform Roberts and Simbears that the notion of Lily Ledbetter being honored in Washington is a false narrative.  In fact, when the Paycheck Fairness Act was debated on the Senate Floor, some interesting facts were brought to light.  Despite the fact that this piece of legislation was retaliatory against House Republicans who tried to pass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), Andrew Stiles of the Washington Free Beacon reported back on May 24 that:

Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.)—three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.

Murray, who has repeatedly accused Republicans of waging a “war a women,” is one of the worst offenders. Female members of Murray’s staff made about $21,000 less per year than male staffers in 2011, a difference of 33.8 percent.

That is well above the 23 percent gap that Democrats claim exists between male and female workers nationwide. The figure is based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, and is technically accurate. However, as CNN’s Lisa Sylvester has reported, when factors such as area of employment, hours of work, and time in the workplace are taken into account, the gap shrinks to about 5 percent.

A significant “gender gap” exists in Feinstein’s office, where women also made about $21,000 less than men in 2011, but the percentage difference—41 percent—was even higher than Murray’s.

Boxer’s female staffers made about $5,000 less, a difference of 7.3 percent.

Can someone define hypocrisy for Mr. Roberts?  On April 11th, Stiles also did an “analysis of the 2011 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff. This document provides the names, titles, and salaries of 454 of Obama’s workers. While women at the Obama White House earned median annual salaries of $60,000 last year, the equivalent remuneration for their male colleagues was some $71,000 — roughly 18 percent higher.”

Journalists on the Left need to do their own fact checking before frivolously bashing politicians with whom they disagree.

Why preaching to the choir is necessary this time

Preaching to the choir. Meant to signal the idea that a person is speaking to those who already agree with them, is generally avoided at this point in the election cycle – not this year.

As we close in on 80 days to the election, normally the campaigns would be working to pull independents to one side or the other, but with Obama running one of the most divisive administrations and campaigns in history, it may be more important to make sure that an excited base gets to the polls.

The “undecided voter” segment of the American population is unusually low. As of August 9th, a Gallup poll shows that undecideds are between 6% and 8% of probably voters. There just aren’t many votes left to grab in that tiny space.

The 2008 Obama campaign was successful because they excited their base with hope and change. The black, hispanic and youth vote came out in huge numbers to support the inexperienced and largely unknown senator from Illinois. With young people facing a dearth of jobs upon graduation, blacks seeing record unemployment and hispanics witnessing assaults on their christian values, entire blocks of Obama supporters may choose to just not vote at all.

Prior to the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney faces a similar challenge for different reasons. He wasn’t Conservative enough for TEA Partiers and moderates weren’t sure that they understood what he stood for – a mixture sure to cause low voter turnout on the GOP side.

Conservative bloggers, contributors, analysts and pundits have known that the hard left was never going to turn out for Romney – now they’ve started realizing that all that is needed to win is to get the base to turn out for him. Paul Ryan was a perfect pick by Romney for just that reason.

As the race to define Rep. Ryan heats up, it just might be time to preach to the choir. No Congressman has a perfect voting record, a gaffe-less public speaking history or perfectly-aligned ideology. The case must be made that despite their faults – the Romney-Ryan ticket is THE ticket and get the base excited about that ticket.

Romney’s pick of Ryan will bring in many in the TEA Party that appreciate his efforts to cut spending and restart the economy. While flawed in the eyes of some, he made real efforts to put forth a framework to reverse the trend of larger government and dangerous debt.

Paul Ryan is a staunch supporter of the second amendment earning an “A” from the NRA on his voting record. Something Romney tried to get with his “small varmints” comment..

Despite continual attacks from the left attempting to paint Ryan as the murderer of medicare and hater of females, his approval among seniors and woman is in good shape and will likely improve as they get to know him.

While every voter had an idea of who their perfect candidate was in the primaries, were in general election season now. That means a large swath of the right didn’t get the ticket they wanted – it means the majority selected a candidate and that’s where things lay.

Now the preaching must begin. Educating the electorate of their choices for Senate, the House and of course, the White House.

Taking only the Senate by a slim margin still leaves the government in grid-lock. Without a veto-proof majority, Obama will still issue executive order dictates and kill everything else that comes from Congress that does not agree with his far-left extremist ideology. America needs a change in the White House to reverse the damage.

This election is no longer about trying to win the middle – it’s about exciting the base and making sure they get to the polls in November.

More Government or Less?

Following GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romney’s selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate, the All Barrack Channel, commonly known as ABC, assumed the form of Amy Walter to administer a spoonful of “progressive” medicine intended to stop the American sugar for going down.

http://news.yahoo.com/ideological-battle-voters-dont-want-100144850–abc-news-politics.html

By calling Ryan’s budget plan synonymous with political polarization, then portraying Mitt Romney picking Ryan for VP as guaranteeing an ideological debate, Walter displays nothing short of utter contempt for voters and their ability to research, learn and decide for themselves.

Even if Walter is correct in saying that a debate over the role of government is looming, she is wrong in assuming, presuming, dictating that swing voters do not want that debate.  Closer to the truth, “progressives” do not want the debate to take place because it could lead to swing voters learning the distinctions between the differing philosophies.  Hence, ABC and other card carrying members of the “progressive” Party Pravda publish “information” that preordains the conclusion to which readers must necessarily arrive: Voters do not want to debate the proper role of government.

Voters are most certainly interested in what their government does, how far it reaches into their lives, and the scope of its power.  Voters have interests that surpass simply having a government that works.

For “progressives” and their Pravda lapdogs, it feeds their agenda to determine and present as fact that voters only want a government that works efficiently.  Safe to say, “progressives” living in America are highly motivated to be primarily concerned with a government that efficiently rewards them with their “fair share” of food stamps, welfare checks, “free” healthcare and other so-called “entitlement” goodies.

The Nazi government was highly efficient in taking a defeated, bankrupt country to the brink of global domination…and slaughtering millions.  When it came to the systematic removal of millions of Chinese, Chairman Mao had a well-oiled government.  The Soviet system very effectively created a manmade disaster while committing genocide by starving millions of Ukrainians to death during the Holodomor.  Che Rivera was ruthlessly efficient in eliminating Fidel’s political opposition in Cuba.

The silent majority, astonished, alarmed and disgusted by the scale, scope and over-reach of the fringe, radical, anti-American agenda enacted by “progressives” armed with unrestrained, unbridled power, got up off the couch and formed the Tea Party.  Contrary to what Walters would have readers believe, the Tea Party is as popular and influential as ever.

The 2010 election that swept Conservatives back in control of the House was indeed a mandate: Do not compromise with those whose negotiating position begins and ends with “what is yours is ours and what is mine is mine.”  History repeatedly reveals that whenever those with this negotiating position obtain final grasp of unrestrained, unbridled power, they do not compromise with their political opposition, they eliminate it.

The reason Washington DC is polarized and ineffective is the harsh, uncompromisingly rigid partisan positions taken by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the current Oval Office occupier and their “progressive” collaborators.

The November 2012 election is a decision voters will make between two competing ideologies.  Voters will determine what role government plays in the lives of people.  Whether “progressives” like it or not, a small government with limited power is the basic construct of the American idea; one “progressives” have long sought to destroy.

Americans want to have the debate “progressives” do not.  The simple reason “progressives” do not want that debate and are so eager to convince swing voters they do not want it either is simple.  That debate is one “progressives” will lose.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/more-government-or-less/

« Older Entries Recent Entries »