"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
--Joseph Stalin

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Romney's "Gaffs" His Greatest Strength

Will Malven
7/31/2012

Democrats are beside themselves with laughter at presumptive Republican Nominee Mitt Romney's perceived "gaffs" on his trip overseas--problem is, they're the only ones laughing.  Everyone else is applauding.

Romney Shines in Israel

David Limbaugh
Jul 31, 2012

I am pumped up about Mitt Romney's speech in Israel -- for both political reasons and policy ones -- and believe it may represent a turning point in the campaign.

Politically -- and this is important because it is critical that he win, or he won't be able to implement any policies and set America back on the road to recovery -- Romney has shown again he is going to take the gloves off, deal with the issues directly and draw a stark contrast between his policies and Obama's record. The significance of this cannot be overstated. Some of the reasons John McCain lost in 2008 were his lackluster campaign, his refusal to showcase Obama's extreme liberalism and, thus, his failure to demonstrate why he would make a better president than Obama. Romney's "gaff" in Britain was mostly him stating a simple fact and the British press leaping to attack the man they universally oppose in favor of Obama, about whom apparently they still have erotic dreams.
What the leftist, Euro-trash press can't abide is a candidate who says exactly what he is thinking.  They laughed at and ridiculed President Bush for his lack of sophistication--his inability to artfully phrase his message in language intended to assuage fears and soothe the nerves of our enemies.  Directness worries and offends liberals, honesty disturbs them, and bluntness sends them into paroxysms of terror.

Romney did all the above, first by traveling to Poland and meeting with freedom fighter and leader Lech Walesa (something Obama couldn't and wouldn't do) then by recognizing Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel and again by comparing the tremendously successful, prosperous, and thriving culture of the people of Israel to the struggling, starving, primitive culture of the "Palestinians."

It will be good to have a president who sees our enemies as enemies and friends as friends.  It will be good to have a president who won't bow down to foreign leaders and snub our closest allies.  It will be nice to have a president who understands that an Ipod filled with his own speeches is not an appropriate gift for the Queen of our closest ally or that DVD's (whatever their zone) do not constitute an appropriate gift of state for the elected leader of our closest ally.

It will be nice to have a president whose "gaffs" consist of factual statements rather than ignorant or dishonest statements.  Most of all it will be nice to have a president who loves America rather than hates it--who wants to see it excel rather than dismantled and replaced.

I'll take Romney's "gaffs" over Obama's obsequiousness towards "elected" dictators like Chavez and Ahmadinejad.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Monday, July 30, 2012

Justice Scalia's Warning About Gun Control

Will Malven
7/30/2012

 Justice Antonin Scalia made some disconcerting remarks on Fox News Sunday by suggesting the possibility that the Supreme Court could be open to further restrictions on gun ownership--in spite of Second Amendment protections.

Scalia opens door for gun-control legislation, extends slow burning debate

Published July 30, 2012
FoxNews.com

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday the Second Amendment leaves open the possibility of gun-control legislation, adding to what has become a slow-boiling debate on the issue since the Colorado movie theater massacre earlier this month.

Scalia, one of the high court’s most conservative justices, said on “Fox News Sunday” that the majority opinion in the landmark 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller stated the extent of gun ownership “will have to be decided in future cases.”

“We’ll see,” he said.
My interpretation of Justice Scalia's words runs more closely along the line of him sending a subtle message to all gun owners and the NRA, that we might be seeing more disappointing rulings from the newly established activist Chief Justice, John Roberts. One can only imagine what the thinking process would be like in a man who feels no compunction at rewriting already established law to magically invent the right of the federal government to require citizens to buy a product from a private business or face fines and/or imprisonment.

Could a man capable of such a breathtaking activist mentality possible restrain himself from finding common ground with those ignorant and misinformed unfortunate fools who believe that any gun legislation will lessen the level of violent crime in America--fools who believe on faith their preposterous assertions, even in the face of factual proof to the contrary. Why Justice Roberts might see it as his obligation to us peons to restrict our access to firearms--for our own good, mind you.

The pro-gun forces had better pay close attention to this warning from Justice Scalia--it may be nothing more than him referring to restrictions of larger weapons, like mortars, rocket-launchers, cannon, and the like, as most in the firearms voting bloc seem to believe--but it may contain a more cautionary warning.

The Constitution and the Amendments to it are quite explicit in their absolute prohibition against government violating certain inherent--God given--rights. Those rights, our Founding Fathers believed were so intuitive and derived from common sense and were as much a part of a man as is his hand. They did not believe them to be severable in any way, so they did as much as they could to assure that future generations retained those rights.

The one thing against which they could not build a bulwark was the irresponsibility of voters and their elected officials, nor the contempt, by Justices of the Supreme Court, for the very document they are sworn to uphold and protect. It is impossible to protect against all the evils of man, especially the evils he does to himself. When voters begin believing their own wishful thinking rather than reality, they put themselves into a position to be deceived by every panderer and snake-oil salesman that comes along--witness the 2008 election.

There is no reasonable or legitimate argument that the intent of our Founding Fathers in writing and approving the 2nd Amendment was so that honorable men could defend themselves, first and foremost from government oppression and only subsequently to that, for home defense or hunting. As well, there is no reasonable or legitimate argument that (to use one of my favorite expressions from Hamilton in the Federalist Papers) a "colorable pretext" exists in the Constitution for the government to regulate firearms, beyond the false pretext against which Alexander Hamilton warned us in Federalist No. 84.
"I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to power which are not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is not power to do?"

What exactly did our Founding Fathers think? Here are a few quotes from the men (except for Jefferson, who was in France at the time) who wrote the Constitution. [Special thanks to guncite.com for these quotations]
"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;"            ---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."           ---James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."           ---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."           ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
          ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. [Cox was one of the delegates for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788].

"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually . . . [common sense gun laws, anyone?] . . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...           ---George Mason--Delegate for Virginia to the Constitutional Convention

Over and over again, the message from both Federalists and anti-Federalists was the same--is the same--the Second Amendment is not, nor was it ever about protecting John F. Kerry's right to "get me uh huntin' license," it is and always has been about keeping power in the hands of the people and NOT in the hands of government officials.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is and always has been to ensure that the American people will always have the final say in how they are governed. It was to ensure that the American people would always remain capable of resorting to armed rebellion, if necessary, to right the ship of state.

Anyone who denies that simple fact is ignorant--either as the result of their DNA, or willfully so. The writings of our Founding Fathers are filled with repeated warnings and admonitions against allowing the state to disarm its citizens--and history is replete with examples of other nations in which the people failed to heed that warning.

It is not rebellion to call for protecting the ability of the people to resort to it. It is not terrorism to advocate for the Constitution nor to cite the writings of our Founding Fathers. And it is the wishes and intent of our Founding Fathers that the American people be armed with the modern equivalent of today's frontline firearms so that, should the need ever arise, the people could rise up against an unjust government.

It is that fact that most frightens the left and the Democrat Party.  They don't want to live in a nation in which the people have ultimate power over their government, they would much prefer to live in a nation in which the government ran and controlled everything--except them.

In a liberal's mind, they are superior to the masses and feel an obligation to protect those unfortunate souls--primarily from themselves.  It never occurs to a liberal that people are fully capable of running their own lives.  The very concept of an armed, enlightened populace scares the willies out of them.

Under militia regulations, artillery was to be provided by the state, but modern weapons and ammo were expected to be in the hands of all citizens capable of bearing them. So Scalia isn't far off base in his analysis--assuming he was only discussing the regulation of large destructive arms.

Those of us who believe in our Constitution and our rights there under now have a waiting game. We get to see if our rights as free citizens will continue, or if they will follow many of our other rights, down the sewer of history.


Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Sunday, July 29, 2012

More Liberal Fantasies About Voters' Questions Concerning Obama

Voter disaffection with Obama growing--questions about his past remain unanswered

Will Malven
7/29/2012

Stumbled across another example of the dazzling efforts members of the MSM are going to in an effort to protect Obama's past from scrutiny.

This comes from the Washington Post Editorial pages, via freerepublic.com:

If Obama loses the election, here’s why

By Drew Westen Published: July 27

With 100 days left in the presidential campaign, perhaps the two most vexing questions in American politics are: How could President Obama possibly lose? And, how could he possibly win?

Americans are scared, angry and struggling. They used to talk about job satisfaction; now they talk about just holding on to their jobs. No incumbent since FDR has ever won reelection with unemployment numbers remotely resembling today’s. What voters feel about their lives and dreams in the months leading up to an election tends to stick to the president when they enter the voting booth. And right now what’s sticking to Obama isn’t good.
Yeah, yeah, standard boilerplate drivel. Let's get to the fantasies:

Fantasy 1: "Obama’s first mistake was inviting the Republicans to the table."

Excuse me, Mr. Westen, but you obviously fail to recall President Obama's comment to those Republicans when they mentioned the fact that Obama wasn't even listening to their input.  To aid you with your unfortunate memory problems, I will provide you with the appropriate reference (it's Politico--mouthpiece for the White House--so your liberal credentials won't be at risk):

Obama to GOP: 'I won' 

Updated: 1/24/09 12:37 AM EDT

 President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.[Emphasis added]
Now that's what I call a real invitation to share one's opinion.  The fact is that Obama "invited them to the table" in only the most cynical and unflattering terms.  His attitude was more that of a sovereign lending a disinterested ear to his vassals complaints--of a political hack posing as an objective listener--than that of a statesman in search of solutions to our nations terrible problems.

Fantasy 2: "The GOP had just decimated the economy . . ."

This one would be down right hilarious if it wasn't for the way Democrats have successfully promulgated this (at best) half-truth.

The Fact:  It was the Democrats in Congress, especially those like Barney Frank, who ignored repeated warnings from the Bush Administration and from their Republican colleagues that the housing industry was at dire risk due to the policies put in place by Democrats under the Community Reinvestment Act and later rules instated under Clinton requiring banks to loan money to people who could not qualify under reasonable lending regulations and created the entire atmosphere (Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis) that led to both the banking collapse and the collapse of the housing industry . . . and ultimately the economy.

During the last four years of President Bush's presidency prior to Democrats taking control of both houses of Congress in 2007, The federal deficit shrank at a greater rate than any economic forecasters predicted, from just over . . . from just over $400 billion in 2004 to just over $170 Billion in 2007 . . . this as the economy was beginning to slow in reaction to the housing bubble.  Once Democrats took control, all bets--and limits to spending--were off.

To be sure Republicans weren't blameless, but you assertion is pure fantasy.

Fantasy 3:  ". . . a private-equity baron lacking a sense of noblesse oblige, and preaching the gospel of deregulation and lower taxes for the rich . . ."

Wow!  Now we see the nastiness that all liberals keep hidden within their dark souls.  Hey Westen, how much of your exorbitant and hardly deserved salary do you give to charity--do you even have the slightest clue as to the meaning of that term you used, "noblesse oblige?"

It always has been the case that conservatives give far more to the less fortunate than liberals.

Romney has given over $18 million in charity and church tithes over the past 13 years A Look Inside The Millions Mitt Romney Has Given Away

If there are people who fail to comprehend the meaning of the phrase "nobless oblige," it is liberals. Liberals, like you, fail utterly to comprehend the meaning of the word "charity" and the concept of "nobless oblige." Both imply giving of ONESELF not taking from one group and giving to another group you feel more deserving.  Liberals believe that charity begins in someone else's pocket.

Mitt Romney has done more for the average American citizen by building his wealth than you, President Obama, and the whole Democrat Hee Haw gang put together.  Without his success in becoming "a private equity baron," there would be no Staples and none of the other myriad of businesses his company returned to fiscal responsibility.

Anyway, enough dissecting of this pathetic, lie-packed, mindless lefty screed. It's not worth my time to go through and debunk the whole FOUR PAGES of drek. I posted this and the link to it as a further example of the rampant dishonesty that so aptly characterizes the Democrat political machine, the Obama-touting MSM, and the Obama Campaign. LOL!!!

Democrats live in a fantasy world of their own imagining--sadly their warped world view impinges and affects our own far too adversely and often.

LOLOL!!! Found this at the bottom of page 4 of this endless--tome of liberal fantasies:
 Drew Westen is a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Emory University and the author of “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.” He is the founder of Westen Strategies, a consulting firm.
This at least explains why there is so little of worth in this article and why it is so interminable.  He's an academic, he knows absolutely nothing about reality.

I can't leave this article alone.  This joker punches every liberal button there is.  He hates Romney--I mean really visceral hatred--(and all free-market capitalists and freedom loving Americans) sooooo much.  Here is some of the language he uses in describing Romney et al.
"In an era when even conservatives are populists, enraged about the favors granted the rich and well-connected, Romney is running as a CEO who thinks his taxes are too high. Voters just aren’t warming up to a guy who enjoys firing people and attempts to woo the people of Michigan by referring to his wife’s “couple of Cadillacs.
Hey, Professor, I see being truthful isn't one of your concerns.  Lie much???

But, folks, here's the clincher.  The real reason Obama is struggling, the conclusion to which this august professor is inescapably led is . . . Obama wasn't liberal enough.

Yep!  Old Einstein Drew here thinks that if only Obama had been more aggressive in pursuing his insane Keynesian suicide plan and spent MORE stimulus money and acted in a more dictatorial manner (it's okay, Drew, we all know you liberals would be far more comfortable under a Stalinist form of government in which only the enlightened--people like you, of course--would be able to make decisions).

Professor Westen doesn't seem to realize that his point of view, his leftist, Utopian fantasy isn't what people want.  Only about 25-30% of the American people self-identify as "liberal" or "progressive," on the other hand, about 60% self-identify as "conservative."

The voters understand that liberalism, A.K.A.Marxism, as a socio-economic system leads to failure--as it has in every nation in which it has been attempted--and that capitalism, free-market capitalism, as practiced in America created the strongest, most prosperous, most powerful, most successful nation in the history of the world and did so in record time.    The voters understand what you reason-limited liberals seem incapable of comprehending.

 Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Pelosi On Obama and Israel: "He's been there over and over"

Will Malven
7/29/2012

I found this at Bloomberg.com (via The Weekly Standard, via Drudge) and your going to split a gut laughing (unless you are one of those "exploited," but "smart" Jews):

Former Madame Speaker of the US House of Representatives, current Minority Leader of the US House of Representatives and sometime stand up comedienne gave an interview with well known hardline journalist and beacon of objectivity, Al Hunt. [For the Democrats out there, I'm being facetious.]

During her interview, replete as usual with hesitations, repetitions, incoherencies and empty, boilerplate, Democrat party rhetoric, was this little exchange:

Pelosi Says Republicans Use Israel to Distract (Transcript)

Jul 27, 2012 3:56 PM CT

---------snip----------

HUNT: Do you think he’ll [President Obama] do as well with the Jewish vote this time as he did last time?

PELOSI: The election will tell us that.

HUNT: What do you think?

PELOSI: But I - I think that he will. I think that he will, because the fact is when the facts get out. You know, as many of the Republicans are using Israel as an excuse, what they really want are tax cuts for the wealthy. So Israel, that can be one reason they put forth.

HUNT: That’s why some of the Republican Jewish supporters are really active.

PELOSI: Well, that’s how they’re being exploited. And they’re smart people. They follow these issues. But they have to know the facts. And the fact is that President Obama has been the strongest person in terms of sanctions on Iran, which is important to Israel. He’s been the strongest person on whether it’s Iron Dome, David’s Sling, any of these weapons systems and initiatives that relate to Israel. He has been there over and over again.

Now I don't know about you, but I do at least attempt to keep up with current events yet . . . somehow . . . I must have missed all those trips to Israel to which Madame Speaker was referring.

It is of course, complete drivel. Obama hasn't been to Israel since he was a candidate still trying to convince people he actually cared about Israel.  If anyone exploited voters--whatever artificial voting bloc they may belong to--it is (and has been since he first appeared on the scene), President Obama.

Either the former Speaker is lying (not a novel place in which to find herself), or she is completely delusional (perhaps a more charitable possibility).  I could suspect it is the former and judging by her record of distortions, half-truths, and outright lies, that would be a safe bet, but sadly I suspect the truth is a combination of the two.

Ms. Pelosi has never been the brightest bulb in her party--not even close--nor has she been the most reliable carrier of tales (at least of truthful tales).  [I will admit that Madame Speaker (at the time) told the truth when she admitted that neither she nor the rest of her Democrat Party colleagues knew what was in the ACA (Obamacare) when they cast their votes for it--a pathetic and egregious abdication of responsibility on their part.]

So, I present this both for your amusement and amazement . . . another glimpse into the bizarre fantasy world of Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who--in the face of all evidence to the contrary--believes that our brave leader has already traveled to Israel, "Over and over."

Earth to Nancy, Earth to Nancy . . . time to return to reality.

Oh yeah, I guess it would be remiss of me to fail to congratulate all our Jewish friends out there for being "exploited," but "smart people."

Who says liberals use broad, stereotypical generalities to describe different demographic groups?  Why that would be . . . discrimination, wouldn't it?


Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Friday, July 27, 2012

"You didn't build that" Comment Still Vexing Obama Campaign

Will Malven
7/27/2012

Obama's self-revelation of his hostility towards private enterprise and his belief in the collective nature of economics and how businesses are created has continued to metastasize as his indignant claims of "being taken out of context" have been proven to be more of his lies.

The Obama campaign is desperately trying to spin their way out of this mess, but they remain steadfast that Obama will continue to make "off-the-cuff" remarks at his appearances.

. . . I certainly hope so!!!

Found this at The Hill, via Drudge (title is linked).

'You didn't build that' remarks won't change Obama's strategy


By Amie Parnes - 07/27/12 05:54 AM ET
The Obama campaign has no plans to change the president's style on the stump in the wake of his "you didn't build that" remark, which Republicans have seized upon in recent days to argue the president is out of touch on the economy.

--------snip-------
While the actions suggest Team Obama thinks the remarks have legs, they insist the controversy won’t change the president’s strategy or messaging approach as the campaign heads into the final 100 days.
“The attempts by the Romney campaign to make this into their rallying cry haven’t changed anything,” said a senior campaign official, adding that Obama “has done events without a teleprompter since then.”
[excerpt]
If the Obama campaign sticks to its guns on this, there will be more of these very revealing slips-of-the-tongue and with them an increasing understanding, by the voting public, as to who our President really is--a foreigner in his own land.

Obama's problem (over and above his Marxist/Stalinist leanings) is a complete lack of any common experience with the American people.  He was raised in foreign lands (Indonesia and the newly declared state of Hawaii) neither of which had much in common, culturally, or politically with the United States mainland.

He was raised, beginning with his return to Hawaii to live with his maternal grandparents, in privilege and tutored in Marxism by his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis as well as his grandfather who, if he was not a communist himself, was at the very least, sympathetic to Davis' political ideology.

Once at university, he found commonality with and was embraced and carefully cultivated by the Marxist academics.

He understands little of the "American experience," or of "the black American experience.  He comprehends little of the American free-enterprise system and how it works and what he does comprehend is from the jaundiced eye of his leftist tutors. He has real difficulty relating to the American people and has little allegiance to our traditions and none to our political and cultural heritage--again he was raised outside of it all.

The whitest "white-bread" "cracker" from Liberty, Mississippi has more in common with blacks in Watts than does President Barack Hussein Obama.

The more Obama goes unscripted, the more the American people will learn of his true beliefs.  This can only accrue to the good of our nation.  The more the American voters learn of Obama, the less likely they will be to support him and his extreme left-wing radicalism.

So . . . SPEAK UP, MR. PRESIDENT!  LET YOUR INNER RADICAL SHINE THROUGH!!!

The more "off-the-cuff" you go, the better for all who believe in our Constitution and our own nation's exceptionalism.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Monday, July 23, 2012

Four More Years??? Of This????

Congratulations, America, we now have accomplished what a couple of decades ago would have been "unthinkable."

With the release of today's debt numbers by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, America has now had five straight years of greater than $1 TRILLION deficits.  Here's the sad . . . pathetic story from CNSNews [link in title].

Federal Government's Debt Jumps More Than $1T for 5th Straight Fiscal Year

(CNSNews.com) - By the end of the third quarter of fiscal 2012, the new debt accumulated in this fiscal year by the federal government had already exceeded $1 trillion, making this fiscal year the fifth straight in which the federal government has increased its debt by more than a trillion dollars, according to official debt numbers published by the U.S. Treasury.

Prior to fiscal 2008, the federal government had never increased its debt by as much as $1 trillion in a single fiscal year. From fiscal 2008 onward, however, the federal government has increased its debt by at least $1 trillion each and every fiscal year.
Great news, isn't it? Uh-yeah, me too. So, what does the great Clown Prince Narcissist in Chief promise us should he be reelected? More of the same . . . in spades. All one has to do to divine the future Barack Obama and the Democrat Party has for us all is look at the past three years:
  • The singular contempt President Obama and his fellow Democrats have shown towards the Constitution
  • The takeover and dismantling of our once great healthcare system
  • Greater debt added to the backs of taxpayers in the past three and a half years than that added by President Bush and more than all previous Presidents (excluding Bush) together
  • Poverty (after five decades of anti-poverty programs and trillions of taxpayer dollars spent to "end poverty as we know it") as high as it was when the whole welfare/Medicaid "Great Society" disastrous overreach began.
  • An infra-structure (y'all remember "infra-structure," don't cha?  . . . that old Democrat stalking horse which accompanies every demand for more federal spending?  Well, that's continued to deteriorate as all that "Stimulus Package" money (that we so "urgently" needed that no one had time to read the authorization) has been squandered on propping up union pension funds and on the failed business ventures of President Obama's big contributors--like Solendra
  • Race relations at a low not seen in decades--as a matter of fact, all demographic groups (those favorite "special interest groups" of Democrats) appear to have become more agitated and over-reactive.
  • Transparency?  Did someone say something about being the most transparent administration in history--THEY LIED.  The Obama Administration has been one of the least open, least transparent in history--Richard Milhous Nixon's notwithstanding.
  • Trust of our government is at an all time low.  Well what can one expect when the American public is faced with a President who is now enthusiastically running demonstrably false political ads and laughing about his dishonesty--as citizens see their elected officials worry more about how they will be seen in the latest news story than how to honestly address and solve the monumental problems we all face . . . and lie to us about it?
  • The Middle East is less stable than it has been in decades
  • America's economy is in a Never-Never land and hovering on the precipice of a double-dip recession for months
  • Official unemployment has been over 8% for three years and those numbers are far from accurate due to the number of discouraged workers who, having been unable to find work for years, have given up, run out of unemployment benefits and been forced onto the welfare rolls or to apply for disability.
  • The Real Estate industry/Housing industry is on life-support
I'm sure I could come up with more of Obama's "accomplishments," but this was mainly to spotlight our dubious accomplishment of having trillion dollar debts for five years running.

HOO-RAY Barack!!!

Ummm . . . CHECK!  I need to get out of here.  Four more years?  Of this?  Are you serious?

For any informed American citizen even to consider supporting Obama, they would have to be certifiable.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Desperation Showing In Obama Campaign

Will Malven
7/18/2012

Well there's one thing certain about all this tomfoolery over Romney's record at Bain Capital, it's a certain sign that Obama and his little cabal of elitist Marxists who comprise his campaign are desperate.

What's most abhorrent about these attacks, what's most sinister about their implications is that those who are making the allegations know them to be false false.  None of them actually believe that Mitt Romney has done anything illegal or unethical . . . they simply wish to destroy the man.  They are enjoying Romney's discomfiture and anger at being lied about.  They think it's cute to engage in this sort of cynical campaign of lies and misrepresentations, because to them the end justifies the means.

You can see the amusement in the MSM talking heads' eyes and hear it in their voices.  Occasionally, as in this morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe, you can even see them snickering about the difficulty Romney is having in refuting these FALSE charges from the Obama camp.  They even publicly acknowledged that there was no substance to the Obama campaign's assertions, but it made no difference to them.  They still continue to push the story--more evidence of liberal desperation

President Obama and the Democrat Party leadership have deliberately chosen to set out on a campaign of lies and distortions intended to smear Mr. Romney in the eyes of the voters.  They couldn't care less it the allegations are false--in fact it amuses them no end that their little conceit has worked so well.

Why the campaign of obvious lies and smear tactics?  Simple.  President Obama can't afford to talk about his record as President, because it is abysmal.  He has to keep up these irrelevant attacks to distract from the fact that his entire administration has been a disaster start to finish.  He can't ask the American people "Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago,"  he can't ask the American voters if they want another 4 years of what he's done so far, he can't point to any accomplishment of his administration, because--to use one of Obama's pet phrases in describing the Constitution--IT'S A RECORD OF NEGATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS.

What is the President's record?
  • More people on welfare than ever before.
  • The largest number of food stamp recipients ever.
  • Permanent 8%+ unemployment. 
  • Underemployment stuck at a devastating and tragic 16%+ 
  • 500,000 fewer jobs available than when Obama took office even as an additional 4 million joined the work force. 
  • The unemployed have been out of work so long they have began to apply for long term disability--more applied for SSI disability than found work in June.
  • More debt added in 3 1/2 years than Bush added in 8 years--with NO POSITIVE EFFECT on employment, industry, or housing, race relations are worse today than they have been in 30 years 
  • Federal takeover of the healthcare industry that is driving businesses out of carrying coverage and costing people who have been covered their entire working careers that coverage. 
As to the outsourcing charges being leveled at Mr. Romney via the Bain Capital attacks (in spite of the fact that he was no longer in charge or weilding anything beyond titular authority), the fact is that Obama has outsourced more jobs in his tenure as Clown Prince Narcissist in Chief than Bain and every other venture capital company combined--$29 Billion in money sent overseas to create jobs for people in foreign nations like Finland and Mexico

I guess Obama cares more about them than he does about the American people. Obama couldn't have done more damage to this nation if he were trying--and it would not be surprising to learn that he was.

There is nothing more contemptible than a candidate or any person who seeks to capitalize on the misery of another when the source of that misery is the lies being promulgated by that candidate.  The more Obama and his Democrat fellows pursue this tactic, the more contemptible and evil they become.

I don't love Romney as a candidate--probably never will--he's not conservative enough or principled enough on the issues.  I also continue to question his willingness to engage the President in a tough, fact-based attack.  I fear he is too consumed with the "if I attack the President they will call me a racist" mentality to do so.

For all that, I am one of those who will choose the lesser of two evils (though classifying Romney in the same general category of evils is offensive to my sense of proportion--Romney at his worst doesn't approach the potential for destruction that Obama represents), so I pray with all my gun and Bible clinging heart that Romney becomes more and more aggressive as his sense of outrage at these unfair and factually dishonest attacks grows.

Romney 2012

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!