Tag Archives: Romney

Where’s that Teleprompter When You Need It?

The inspiration for Obama's flag pin.

The inspiration for Obama’s flag pin.

Not only did Mitt Romney win the first presidential debate, he was also victorious in the battle of the flag pins. Compared to the horizontal flag pin Obama was wearing, Romney’s looked like the mainsail on a frigate.

Obama’s pin resembled those narrow, black eyeglass frames that geeks and hipsters wear to show their superiority to people who don’t know what “jelly bean” on an Android is. It had the same proportions as the gunport on a pillbox, only smaller.

Romney’s pin, on the other hand, was large enough to contain a mysterious dot that even on HD–TV didn’t have enough detail to allow one to identify it. Had the debate been in Orlando, I would have assumed it was Mickey Mouse, but Denver is not associated with any cartoon characters, unless you include Gov. Hickenlooper. Turns out that Romney’s pin is the one worn by members of the Secret Service and it was given to him by an agent on his protective detail.

I suppose Obama’s Secret Service detail thought it more fitting to give him golf tees or a bank bag, either of which would have looked out of place at the debate. And speaking of out of place, where do you think Obama would have rather been last night? He spent most of the evening looking like a petulant celebrant missing his big 20th wedding anniversary shindig.

The audience thought it was a joke when Obama began his opening statement promising Michelle they would not be celebrating next year’s anniversary on a debate stage. But based his frowny–face during the split–screen shots when Romney was talking, I think he was serious. He looked testy and put–upon all evening.

It was evident the Obama hadn’t faced any hostile questions from anyone during the past four years, assuming you overlook Michelle’s demanding when he intends to quit smoking.

The “yowza boss” attitude of the White House press corps is not conducive to making one fast on his feet.  Nor is becoming an alternate cast member of ‘The View.’ Maybe his schedule for the day read “9PM: slo–jamming the debate with your PBS homies,” because he was woefully unprepared.

Ann Romney may not like the questioning the campaign and her husband have undergone this year, but it sure made him sharper on his feet. Mitt was even mildly humorous at times, although he had a tendency to step on his own laugh lines. He needs to pause a beat after the punch line to give the audience time to respond. He could have made the “changing insurance companies” comment into a punch line and made himself look more like a regular guy, with just a bit of work. And Mitt went too fast when he accused Obama of only picking losers, so the impact was damaged. Unfortunately every comedian in the country appears to be on the Obama team, so it’s hard for Mitt to rehearse. I wonder what Drew Carey is doing?

Currently Obama spinmeisters are complaining about the replacement referee, er moderator. But the fact is when Obama the moderator and drones on FIVE MINUTES longer than Romney, yet still loses the debate, your candidate and your campaign are in a world of hurt.

As a result, I predict the Obama campaign will demand changes in the ground rules for debates two and three. First and foremost David Axelrod will be in charge of the visuals. This means no more cutaway shots or split–screen views when Romney is speaking. Obama will be able to chew Nicorette and stamp his foot with the audience none the wiser.

They may even demand Obama appear backlit behind a screen like 60 Minutes does when they interview a whistle–blower who doesn’t want to be recognized.

And all evidence points toward Obama’s team urging him to be more aggressive during the remaining debates, ready to pounce on Romney and his evil plans.

Fors fortus, as the Romans say.

He may be able to frighten the White House staff and startle the interns when Obama gets forceful, but I have an idea that during the debate it will only look bitchy.

Romney in Big Trouble

rumble-in-the-jungle-shook-the-world-thumb-400xauto-48021

Following the first presidential debate on October 3rd between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, one in which Romney repeatedly scored and Obama appeared lost, annoyed and disinterested; pundits, pollsters and political junkies alike unanimously declared Mitt Romney as the winner.

Obama, a long time card carrying member of the self-proclaimed institutionalized “progressive” left intellectual elite, was not simply one step ahead of the opposition.  He was so extremely clever he completely tricked, baffled and befuddled his own supporters.

What the entire watching world missed was, Obama’s apparently dismal failure in the Denver, CO debate was a well-planned, strategic, flawlessly executed tactic.

Barack Obama, being so much smarter than everyone else, thoroughly fooled the masses with his deliberately debased debate debacle.

His performance was so convincing that even Bill Maher and Chris Matthew swallowed the bait hook, line and sinker.  Maher, who has put lots of his own money behind Obama, bemoaned on Twitter “I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter”.  Matthews was beside himself, tormenting himself by wondering aloud why the real Obama failed to show up for the verbal tussle.

You would think nobody had ever heard of Muhammad Ali shockingly conquering George Foreman in the historic Rumble in the Jungle.

This must have been Obama’s strategy going into the debate, to strategically pattern the three debates after the world famous Ali-Foreman heavyweight championship bout.  Play rope-a-dope and intentionally allow the opponent to attack, all the while knowing your adversary will tire and his skills will eventually wane.

For Barack Obama, who as demonstrated by his actions in office clearly considers himself vastly intellectually superior to even his White House predecessors, much less his backwards thinking Conservative yokel opponent, there can be no other explanation.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/romney-in-big-trouble/

Mitt Romney Makes Surprise Stop at CPAC Following Debate Trouncing of Obama

Mitt Romney, Matt Romney, Craig Romney, Tagg Romney, Josh Romney

Michelle Ray, Kyle Becker and EyeDesert are covering CPAC for Conservative Daily News. Check back with CDN for more CPAC coverage!

Mitt Romney made a surprise stop at CPAC Colorado, fresh off of his trouncing of Obama at the Denver debates. Flanked by four of his sons, Mitt extolled the virtues of the free enterprise system and reiterated that “trickle down government” never works.

Instead, Mitt Romney laid out a vision of the country’s future where wealth and jobs were generated by freedom. It was a theme reinforced by the rousing stemwinder given by Marco Rubio, who had spoken moments earlier.

Far from deviating from specifics, both Rubio and Romney explained the real world consequences of an economy dominated by government. Both explained with illustrative examples that small businesses need transparency, freedom, and a stable regulatory regime in order to plan for the future and generate jobs.

Obama showed weakness in the Denver debate explaining his economic plans for the next four years and while defending an indefensible record. The president oftentimes complained about problems that he had every opportunity to fix the first two years of his presidency, such as fixing corporate loopholes and lowering corporate taxes. America has the highest corporate taxes in the developed world; nearly twice the OECD average.

But far from extolling the virtues of corporatism, Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio have taken positions that advance freedom and not big corporate interests. Rubio explained clearly how big government leads to corruption, and that America has been exceptional in world history because it has not been dominated by a select few. Instead, competition allows those who are poor and determined to advance with their dreams. Mitt Romney, for his part, criticized the Federal Reserve for temporarily propping up the economy.

These are far from the talking points of corporatists and status quo moderates. Of course, libertarians may believe that meaningful change advancing the cause of liberty cannot come soon enough. But the Republican leadership is changing the conversation in this country with a meaningful and obviously sincere endorsement of freedom. And that is the first step towards changing the nation’s politics.

Video H/T Revealing Politics

Debate Tonight!

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney

10/2/12 Tonight marks the first of three debates between President Obama and his opponent Mitt Romney. It will be hosted at the University of Colorado and moderated by PBS’s Jim Lehrer (making his 13th Presidential Debate appearance). This also may be the first time the nation at large will get to see the “real” candidates. During the 2008 elections Obama was an unknown quantity, a blank canvas on which Americans could project their own ideas of who Barack Obama was, and who they hoped him to be. This time around Obama has a record, a string of scandals and an air of arrogance that has surprised many of his supporters. Since the mainstream media has already been grossly negligent in reporting on the Obama administration, tonight will be the first time the public will be able to see Obama directly challenged on his dismal record.

This will also be the first time many non-Republicans will get to see Mitt Romney in action. Tonight will be an opportunity for Romney to show America his “real” personality as opposed to what gets shown on the biased evening news reports from a negligent (yes, I used the word again because it cannot be overstated) national media. If played right, this could be Romney’s Reagan moment. Just like Reagan did in 1980 when running against Carter, Romney could have the opportunity to show a lighter side than has been painted in the media; to break away from the “evil Republican” caricature and give Americans the opportunity to say “Gee, I never realized he was such a likable guy”.

Already the mainstream media and the Obama campaign (one in the same, basically) have been hard at work lowering expectations for his performance tonight. There is no doubt that this debate is Romney’s to lose…but then again, Republicans have always been good at securing defeat from the jaws of victory.

There should be no issues finding a broadcast to watch this evening as nearly every major station will be covering the event, but here is a link to one live stream if you prefer to watch online. And don’t forget to follow me on Twitter as I’ll be live-tweeting the debate tonight and that is ALWAYS entertaining. You can follow me @kiradavis422 or just click on the Twitter button right here on the site to get connected.

Romney: Attack to Win

C-Romney_Obama_Debate

America’s 2012 deficit has surpassed the already outrageous and immoral deficit of 2011.  Despite hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani veterans not yet receiving their VA health care benefits Barack Obama has increased spending on foreign aid by 80 percent.

Where is that foreign aid going?  How much of it will fund America’s so-called allies in Libya, Egypt or Pakistan?  What portion of taxpayer’s money will end up in the hands of jihadists who posted threats on Facebook before their well-planned, coordinated 9/11 consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya; an assault that resulted in the death of four unprotected Americans?   Or will that money somehow end up in the coffers of the al Qaeda terrorists who bombed that same consulate twice in the weeks preceding the assault?

After repeated requests for increased security measures, why was the Benghazi consulate left unprotected by the Obama administration’s Departments of State and Defense?

If Benghazi is so unsafe that the entire U.S. staff has been pulled out, and the well trained, well equipped FBI cannot enter to investigate the “crime scene”, why were the U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans sent there?

Why is the Obama administration acting in full blown denial of al Qaeda and other elements of Islamofascism being alive and well and influential in the Middle East and North Africa?

With the Muslim Brotherhood in control of Egypt’s government, Egyptian women legitimately fear they will see their rights diminished.  In Afghanistan, where the Taliban and al Qaeda are patiently waiting out the pre-announced withdrawal of America’s armed forces, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s pledge to Afghani women that America will not abandon them and their rights is skating on thin ice.

At a meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York a senior North Korean diplomat warned that North and South Korea are ‘on the verge of nuclear war’.

Feeling safer now that Obama’s policies of appeasement are in full bloom?

On the home front, while America speeds towards a fiscal cliff that will throw the economy into a double dip recession and lead to huge tax increases, the Obama administration coerced Lockheed Martin into dropping plans to issue legally required layoff notices to employees in the swing state of Virginia.  The Office of Management and Budget promised Lockheed Martin that the government would pay the legal costs if Lockheed was charged with violating the WARN Act.  That means taxpayers will get stuck with the bill for the Obama administration’s encouraging Lockheed Martin to break the law.

Meanwhile, the nanny state and the nanny state mentality continue to “evolve”.  Now, the government has plans to “urge” parents to pattern their family dinners after school lunches.  Since when is it the government’s job to use American children to dictate dinner table fare to parents?

Two more U.S. Border Patrol agents have been shot.  In what may turn out to be a replay of the Brian Terry catastrophe, one died.  In what the Obama administration will certainly describe as an “isolated incident”, Fast and Furious weapons were found in the possession of a Juarez drug cartel leader.

The healthcare reform law, which was sold on the promise that middle income families would see their premiums reduced by $2,500, has caused them to rise by $3,000.  For each and every middle income family, that is a harsh $5,500 reality being imposed upon their already falling incomes.  In addition, private property owners now face a new Federal Surtax to help pay for Medicare…and hospitals now face new fines for readmitting Medicare patients “too quickly”.  How “too quickly” is defined will be determined by an unelected, unaccountable oligarchy in Washington DC; not the hospital, not the doctor, not the patient.

Low and Middle incomes have fallen sharply since Obama took office.  The reckless spending of Obama and members of his “progressive” body politic ensures it is only a matter of time before middle income families see their taxes rise.

In the face of this evidence, Americans are expected to believe that Mitt Romney is the one who is out of touch and hostile to the interests of America’s middle class?

In such a target rich environment, Mitt Romney should attack Barack Obama’s policies and record in a grand, sweeping, big picture, presidential fashion.  By doing so, Romney will be able to draw a clear distinction between his plans for America and Obama’s.  By employing this strategy, Romney stands to win considerably more than the October 3rd debate in Denver, Colorado.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/romney-attack-to-win/

Romney is Gaining Among Hispanics

According to a new poll, Mitt Romney is gaining with Hispanic Voters.

“This week’s impreMedia-Latino Decisions tracking poll found slight gains for presidential candidate Mitt Romney in battleground states with 33% certain to or thinking about voting for him,” Latino Decisions reports.

(AP)

Even though 33 percent is a weaker showing compared to Obama’s per Hispanics, it is a much better number than in previous weeks and months.”Just before the beginning of the Republican National Convention in Tampa presidential candidate Mitt Romney continues to overwhelmingly lose the Latino vote and has low levels of favorability among the majority of the Latino electorate. The first weekly tracking poll of Latino registered voters by Latino Decisions and impreMedia reveals that 65% would vote to re-elect President Barack Obama and 26% would prefer the Republican alternative offered by Romney,” Latino Decisions reported on August 27.

However, even as the polls show that Romney is gaining among Hispanics, he still falls well short of Obama.

“Fifty-one percent of Latino voters in ten battleground states said they trust Obama and the Democrats more to make the right decisions and improve economic conditions, compared to 27% for Romney and Republicans. When combined with voters in non-battleground states, the numbers jumped to 72% and 20% respectively, a significant increase from 4 weeks ago when overall 59% said they trusted Obama and Democrats more versus 30% for Romney and Republicans to fix the economy,” Latino Decisions reports on the new poll.

Follow Chris on Twitter

Today’s Yahoo/ABC Hit Piece

media-bias cartoon

Yahoo News and ABC News, two dependable card carrying members of the “progressive” Party Pravda, completely ignore spreading violence in the Islamist world, the White House cover up of the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack and Barack Obama’s decision to appear on a daytime talk show rather than meet with world leaders.

Nothing to see here folks, keep moving along.

Instead, they focus the Yahoo website headline on attacking GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.  This is done by using an ABC News/Washington Post poll to “report” that criticism of Romney’s campaign has grown.  The poll of 1,012 adults claims that sixty-one percent of those asked rated his efforts negatively.  Poll results show that number has risen by twelve percentage points since mid-July.

The poll also shows that a majority of Americans have an unfavorable view of Romney’s comments about the forty seven percent who pay no income taxes.

The article then gushes all over Obama’s positive grades for handling his presidential campaign.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/criticism-romneys-campaign-grows-six-10-rate-efforts-100132981–abc-news-politics.html

Leave it to the “progressive” Party Pravda to use their online footprint to “nudge” voters leftward in Obama’s direction based solely on polling information about how the two candidates are running their campaign.

Never mind the lack of jobs.  Never mind the consistently high unemployment, never mind pocket book crippling inflation at the grocery store, the gas pump, or on the family electricity bill.  Forget about the rising cost of college tuition or escalating healthcare premiums.  That there are Islamist countries around the globe burning American flags, burning Obama in effigy, while attacking American embassies and consulates is not important.  Having four Americans, including the ambassador to Libya, butchered in a premeditated terrorist attack on 9/11 is just a “bump in the road”.

What is important is to indoctrinate low information voters into judging the two presidential candidates based on how a handful of voters, carefully selected by ABC News and the Washington Post, view the way the two candidates are running their campaigns.

That makes understanding the presidential race more like watching American Idol or Dancing with the Stars, something those who are not fortunate enough to be included among the “intellectual elite” can comprehend.

Of course, if you believe those 1,012 voters have in no way been influenced by the openly biased reporting of Yahoo News, ABC News and the Washington Post you are seriously prone to stating that Brian Williams is a straight shooter…and to buying more snake oil from a certain salesman hailing from Hawaii, by way of Indonesia, by way of Chicago.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/todays-yahooabc-hit-piece/

Romney-Obama: Two Speeches, Two Views

Romney-at-Clinton-Global-Initiative-2-jpg

Despite recognition by virtually everyone but the Oval Office that the White House trumpeted anti-Islamist video trailer has next to nothing to do with violence in the Middle East, and that it is simply a re-election distraction ploy that deflects blame from Obama’s failed foreign policy; in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly Barack Obama continued to blame the video for Mid-East riots and violent demonstrations.

Obama used that narrative as the backdrop for saying there is “No speech that justifies mindless violence.  There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents” and “No video that justifies an attack on an embassy”.  Obama also said that the video “is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well.”

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-condemns-violence-tied-anti-muslim-film-145204587–election.html

How is the exercise of free speech by an American an insult to America?  Is Obama ever going to make a similar statement about artists who dip Crucifixes in urine?

Obama also said “I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that.”

So Obama recognizes that UN member states do not share American views on the protection of free speech by the U.S. Constitution.

What is Obama doing about it?  Recognizing that Islamists will continue to launch military assaults upon American embassies and consulates around the world while he continues to lay the blame at the feet of Americans exercising their right to free speech?

GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, giving an address before the Clinton Global Initiative’s annual conference, made the case for the inherent strength and endurance of the private sector and the dignity derived by individuals reaping the rewards of their own labor.

“That must be at the heart of our effort to help people build economies that can create jobs for people, young and old alike. Work builds self-esteem. It transforms minds from fantasy and fanaticism to reality and grounding.  Work will not long tolerate corruption nor quietly endure the brazen theft by government of the product of hardworking men and women.”

Romney said if he wins the White House, he will “remind the world of the goodness and bigness of the American heart.  I will never apologize for America. I believe that America has been one of the greatest forces for good the world has ever known.  We can hold that knowledge in our hearts with humility and unwavering conviction.”

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-jokes-clinton-influence-2012-election-143506618–election.html

Two candidates for one high office offer distinctly differing world views.

Obama’s view is to preach moral equivalence while shrinking from defense of the U.S. Constitution and the God given rights it protects for all Americans.

Romney’s is to stand up for America and its economic system while celebrating the prosperity and good America has both created and symbolized for over two centuries.

Does the distinction need to be drawn more clearly?

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/romney-obama-two-speeches-two-views/

With Friends Like These…

s-PEGGY-NOONAN-ROMNEY-large

As the GOP nominee to be President of the United States, it would seem reasonable to expect that members of your own political Party would support you.

Apparently, for Mitt Romney, that is an unreasonable expectation.

Peggy Noonan, a former speech writer for President Ronald Reagan (who joined with Colin Powell in turning their backs on the Republican Party while publically supporting Barack Obama in 2008), wrote of Romney’s campaign that “an intervention” is needed  because it is “incompetent”.

Noonan continued: “It’s not big, it’s not brave, it’s not thoughtfully tackling great issues.  It’s always been too small for the moment.  All the activists, party supporters and big donors should be pushing for change.”

She doubled down later, when she said: “The Romney campaign has to get turned around. This week I called it incompetent, but only because I was being polite. I really meant ‘rolling calamity.’”

This is not entirely unexpected from someone who’s credentials were built on being a speech writer for a President who had very little need for speechwriters, who of her own free will turned her back on her political Party to publically support an obviously inexperienced, unqualified, community organizer who was manufactured into a pop star candidate by institutionalized “progressive” leftists in America’s media.  A candidate who had never run a business, never met a payroll…who had voted “present” over one hundred times as an Illinois State Senator.  A candidate who had lived his entire life not only surrounded by anti-American radicals, but who when in school actively sought them out.

The attacks coming from Bill Kristol, editor of the ‘Weekly Standard’, who worked as chief of staff to former Vice President Dan Quayle, are less explainable. 

Recently, Kristol wrote: “It remains important for the country that Romney wins in November (unless he chooses to step down and we get the Ryan-Rubio ticket we deserve!).   But that shouldn’t blind us to the fact that Romney’s comments, like those of Obama four years ago, are stupid and arrogant.  Has there been a presidential race in modern times featuring two candidates who have done so little over their lifetimes for our country, and who have so little substance to say about the future of our country?”

When Kristol states that this election features “two candidates who have done so little over their lifetimes for our country” is he honestly comparing a former community organizer (radicalizer) who since moving into the White House has continuously placed obstacles in the path of job creating small businesses, stifled energy development, socialized huge portions of the private sector economy, and created catastrophic  chaos overseas, to a capital investor who succeeded within the American free market enterprise system, saved businesses from insolvency, created jobs, protected the nation from international embarrassment when he rescued the Salt Lake City Olympic Games from bankruptcy, who as Governor reduced his State’s debt without raising taxes while improving their schools to the best in the country?  Or is Kristol just trying to sound important in hopes of remaining relevant?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206692/Ann-Romney-tells-Mitts-chattering-class-critics-Stop-This-hard-You-want-try-it.html

If this can be counted on from Republicans, who needs Kaili Joy Gray of the Daily Kos?

Gray gleefully joins in the “pile on Mitt Romney” festivities, but prefers to first attack the candidate’s wife: “Ann Romney is once again up on her gold-plated cross, and she’s got another message for the ingrates out there who don’t appreciate how hard it is to be her.

During an interview early this evening with Radio Iowa, Mrs. Romney directly addressed her fellow Republicans who’ve criticized her husband.

‘Stop it. This is hard. You want to try it? Get in the ring.  This is hard and, you know, it’s an important thing that we’re doing right now and it’s an important election and it is time for all Americans to realize how significant this election is and how lucky we are to have someone with Mitt’s qualifications and experience and know-how to be able to have the opportunity to run this country’.”

When Gray does quit picking on the candidate’s MS stricken, breast cancer surviving wife and slithers off to attack Mr. Romney, the following spews forth: “It really is a message that would resonate well if they could just get past some of their biases that have been there from the Democratic machines that have made us look like we don’t care about this community.  But no. You people just won’t let up, with the mockery of the Romneys’ car elevator; with the questions about all those millions stashed away in secret bank accounts; with the outright disgust at Ann’s tales of woe about struggling to survive on Mitt’s inherited stock portfolio.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/21/1134767/-Ann-Romney-is-sick-of-you-people-not-understanding-how-hard-it-is-to-be-Ann-Romney

Gray and Kos have carefully aligned themselves with the class warfare strategy of the White House re-election campaign.

In the final weeks of what is an extremely important tipping point election, possibly the most significant American election since the 1860s, is it really too much to ask for Republican pundits and journalists to at least offer constructive criticism instead of plain old Daily Kos style attacks?

With friends like Noonan and Kristol, who needs Gray?

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/with-friends-like-these/

Taxation Without Participation

It's easy to vote for higher taxes when you're not paying.

It’s easy to vote for higher taxes when you’re not paying.

Michael Kinsley described a “gaffe” as anytime a politician is caught telling the truth. This is particularly accurate for Republicans and conservatives as is demonstrated by the reaction to Mitt Romney’s comment regarding Obama’s base.

The setting was unfortunate — a $50,000–a–plate fundraiser — but the message was accurate. As he discussed campaign strategy — not governing philosophy — Romney explained: “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what…who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it… And the government should give it to them…

Our message of low taxes doesn’t connect…so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the five to 10 percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful…”

Romney neglected to mention another solid portion of the Obama base: the welfare–industrial complex composed of government workers and associated special interest groups. The simple fact is the more people receiving government handouts, the more government employees you need to distribute the geetus.

The size of the two populations increases in lockstep as does the size of the Obama base. There is no exit strategy for the War on Poverty.

And this is nothing new, as Ann Coulter pointed out, “Democrats’ problem with welfare reform always was that if it worked, we would need fewer of these well-pensioned public employees, a fact repeatedly acknowledged by liberals themselves.”

Democrat “compassion” for the poor and underprivileged always comes with a healthy dose of self–interest. Just like any attack on Republicans while defending welfare programs is done with elections in mind. They know a reduction in dependency threatens to result in a reduction in Democrats.

Why do you think the Obama administration imitates Tupperware and throws food stamp parties to urge people to apply for handouts? Why did the number of able–bodied participants in the food stamp program double after Obama suspended the work requirement? Why do a record 8.8 million Americans collect disability checks? Why do federal unemployment checks continue for almost two years? And why is the Obama administration spending a record 15.4 percent of the Gross Domestic Product on direct cash payments to individuals?

The answer is simple: Obama’s building his base. That’s why Democrats at their national convention had no problem with an Orwellian video that proclaimed, “Government is the only thing that we all belong to.”

Realizing this 47 percent voting block constitutes a problem isn’t a targeting decision made inside the Romney campaign. It’s an issue with the potential to rend the social fabric of the nation. It is a serious enough problem to offer Democrats a trade.

Conservatives agree to abandon photo ID requirements for voting if in return Democrats agree any citizen who is dependent on the federal government for his livelihood is not eligible to vote. This important reform would not mean a permanent loss of voting privileges and the creation of lifelong second–class citizens. On the contrary, as soon as the dependent citizen re–establishes financial independence the individual regains his vote. Regaining his vote acts as an incentive for personal responsibility.

When 47 percent of the populace is dependent on government benefits the nation is fast approaching a tipping point. Once the number passes 50 percent, American society will no longer have a crucial element of shared sacrifice. Instead the dependency block gets to vote for their share of increased benefits and taxpayers make the sacrifice. Even Democrats should be able to recognize that situation is unfair and inequitable.

For example, are McDonald’s customers allowed to set the price of a Big Mac? Do employees of Government Motors vote to set their own salaries? Do football teams get to vote on how many points the opposing defense will surrender?

There already exists a precedent for temporarily relinquishing the vote. Judges, Congressmen and even members of the city council are not supposed to vote or rule on matters in which they have a financial interest.

Naturally government employees would retain voting privileges. As would Social Security recipients, simply because seniors have been told since the program’s inception the money is not welfare. It’s not true now and it was a lie in 1935, but I’m not prepared to penalize seniors because the government misled them.

This reform would leave us with an electorate that bears the responsibility of paying for the government it advocates. Without this reform the Obamatrons continue to benefit unfairly from Taxation Without Participation.

In November one might cynically term Obama’s 47 percent “pocketbook voters,” only the pocketbook they’ll be voting is yours.

Unmistakable Patterns of Deceit

2631892172a35f1cbf1b36f8758c4f2e

New Jobless claims hit the 382,000 mark as once again, more Americans filed jobless claims than was originally forecast.  It was revealed that six million middle class voters, more than first estimated, will be hit by the tax penalty for not getting insurance under Obamacare.  When the new regulations in Obamacare are added to existing federal regulations, American taxpayer and business costs will increase by $1.8 trillion annually, a number that exceeds the original estimates proffered by the Obama the administration by a factor of twenty.  That means twenty times the original estimates is the correct answer.

Beginning to see the pattern there?

When asked in 1995 to explain his vision of democracy, Obama said:

“I think that recapturing the spirit that existed not just in the civil-rights movement but in the union organizing movement, in the populous movement. I think there is a running thread; one of the better angels of our nature in this country which has been the notion that, you know, we can sit around the table and find common ground and make democracy work in the way that it should be working.  It’s not popular right now to say that, and to believe in sort of a common good, but I think that notions of a common good are the glue that hold our society together and make democracy possible.”

When Obama was asked if he is “willing to stake your political career on your common ground?” he replied “That’s the core of my faith.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xsobm33ATC0

Is it for the “common good” that the administration and its media lapdog puppets have lied to the American public about unemployment numbers, and the impact and costs of federal regulations, including the much ballyhooed Obamacare?

Beginning to see the pattern there?

The U.S. Embassy in Pakistan is under siege.  Protests in Indonesia have forced the American consulate to shut down for a second consecutive day.  In Afghanistan, hundreds have taken to the street chanting anti-American slogans.  In Iran, equal numbers are chanting “Down with the U.S.”

The Prime Minister in Iraq has condemned the United States for an obscure anti-Islamist video trailer posted on YouTube.  The very same video the Obama administration made great efforts to solely blame for what they described as “spontaneous” protests in the Islamist world.  That would be multiple voices at the highest levels of the Executive Branch…for days.

Now it has been revealed by witnesses “that there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate [in Benghazi, Libya]. Instead, they say, it came under planned attack. That is in direct contradiction to the administration’s account of the incident.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-never-anti-american-protest-benghazi-only-planned-attack_652761.html

It seems an either dishonest or an inept administration misled the public about Libya.

Beginning to see the pattern there?

What gets reported by the “mainstream media”?  The same media found culpable of intentionally misleading the public on important policy matters that affect all Americans?

Thursday morning September 20, 2012 the top headline on Yahoo News: Pawlenty quits as Romney campaign co-chair.

The subtext under that headline: The move came with Romney’s campaign struggling with just seven weeks before election-day.

This is a case in point that clearly illustrates unmistakable bias against GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

The article opens by stating that “Tim Pawlenty quit as co-chair of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign on Thursday to become one of Wall Street’s top lobbyists in Washington. Pawlenty, a former governor of Minnesota, will lead the Financial Services Roundtable.”

Notice the phrase “quit as co-chair”.  Why was it not: “resigned as co-chair”?  Note that the article ensures that in the very first paragraph readers are told that the quitter Pawlenty is going to “become one of Wall Street’s top lobbyists in Washington.”

How, exactly, do Oliver Knox and Yahoo News know that Pawlenty will “become one of Wall Street’s top lobbyists in Washington”?

If Olivier Knox and Yahoo News are truly so proficient at forecasting the future, why are they not using this supernatural power to clue America in on how to solve its myriad of problems at home and abroad?

Of course, since they do not actually possess such abilities, this ensure Obama gets re-elected at all costs (even costs to whatever remnants of journalistic integrity remain in America) hit piece is reduced to further efforts to diminish the GOP through hyping the already failed “progressive” spin that “Romney’s campaign has been grappling with a video showing him seemingly writing off Obama supporters as having a “victim” mindset and being reliant on government handouts.”

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/pawlenty-quits-romney-campaign-co-chair-132022573–election.html

Beginning to see the pattern there?

Unfortunately for Oliver Knox, Yahoo News and their cohorts within the “progressive” Party Pravda, a CNBC Poll shows that 75 percent of Americans agree with Romney’s 47 percent comments.

Obama, “progressives” and their minions within their Pravda lie through their teeth about the true nature, scope and reach of Obama’s failure.  Americans see through their lies.

Beginning to see the pattern there?

Much to their dismay, after November 6, 2012, Obama, “progressives” and their minions within the “progressive” Party Pravda will.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/an-unmistakable-pattern-of-deceit/

Mother Jones Posts “Secret” Recording of Mitt Romney at Fundrasier (pt 1)

Secret Romney Video 1

This is the section of video that most people have seen and are talking about.

From Mother Jones-

Mother Jones has obtained video of Romney at this intimate fundraiser—where he candidly discussed his campaign strategy and foreign policy ideas in stark terms he does not use in public—and has confirmed its authenticity. To protect the confidential source who provided the video, we have blurred some of the image, and we will not identify the date or location of the event, which occurred after Romney had clinched the Republican presidential nomination. Here is Romney expressing his disdain for Americans who back the president:

White House, Press Corps Use Mid-East Crisis to Distract From Failing Economy

closed-out-of-business

Barrack Obama and members of the institutionalized “progressive” left smear machine, otherwise known as the mainstream media, launched a series of seemingly coordinated attacks on GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.  The White House and the press uncannily echoed each other while criticizing Romney for speaking in opposition to the Cairo Embassy’s apology to Islamists for “efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims” on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

Obama attacked Romney for having “a tendency to shoot first and aim later”.  After firing that salvo, Obama was off to yet another fund raising event in Las Vegas, where he furthered the assault by saying “It appears that Gov. Romney didn’t have his facts right”.  Meanwhile, Obama’s campaign assailed Romney for using the “tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya” to “launch a political attack”.

It seems that for mysterious, unexplained reasons it has somehow slipped the minds of Obama and the Obama campaign that he politicized foreign policy back in 2008 by attacking George W. Bush and then GOP presidential candidate John McCain for troop deaths in Iraq and their support of the Iraq War.

Not only have the media and the White House been singing from the same sheet music, a discussion caught on an open microphone and recorded immediately before Romney’s Wednesday morning press conference clearly revealed the press corps coordinating hostile questioning aimed at discrediting Romney and knocking him off stride.

While the White House and the “progressive” Party Pravda were busy diverting the public’s attention towards Mitt Romney and away from the sagging economy, new claims for jobless benefits rose again, while a spike in wholesale gasoline costs drove consumer prices higher.

Economists had predicted claims for unemployment benefits would rise to 370,000.  However according to the Labor Department, initial claims rose to a seasonally adjusted 382,000.  That is the highest in two months.  Consistent with a pattern seen since Obama took office, figures from the prior week were again revised upwards, showing 2,000 more applications than originally reported.

For the first time since the Great Depression, the officially reported unemployment rate has been stuck above 8 percent for over three years.

The producer price index, as measured by the Labor Department, jumped 1.7 percent in August.  That increase was the biggest gain in three years.   Gas prices soared by 13.6 percent.  Steep increases in eggs and dairy costs drove food prices up 0.9 percent.

The median income of American households continues to decline on Barack Obama’s watch, dropping to its lowest level since 1995.  According to Census Bureau data, 2011 median income fell to $50,054.  That is 1.5 per cent below the 2010 level and 4.1 per cent below what the median income level was when Obama took office.

This highlights the extent of the damage inflicted upon America’s middle class by Obama’s failed economic policies.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/white-house-press-corps-use-mid-east-crisis-to-distract-from-failing-economy/

« Older Entries Recent Entries »