Monday, October 24, 2011

ROMNEY AS PRESIDENT - Too many strikes against him: 

            It categorically impossible for someone who understands and authentically believes in conservative political theory to voluntarily take so many wrong positions.  Romney’s failure to understand Conservative Constitutional Principles is glaring.  The evidence clearly shows Romney’s abject record is unparalleled.

1)  Healthcare/RomneyCare Romney led the fight for and implemented health care reform almost identical to ObamaCare which he refuses to admit was an abomination and a step in the direction of statism-forever changing the citizen to a subject of the state. Despite the fact that RomneyCare has failed, increasing health care costs dramatically. Between 2006 and 2009, cumulative costs increased by $8,569,000,000, emergency room visits are up 7.2 percent, and premiums rose 6 percent, according to the Beacon Hill Institute. http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/HCR-2011/PR-HealthCareReform2011-0627.htm
             Romney called his beta version of ObamaCare “a model for the nation” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576317413439329644.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
             RomneyCare, like ObamaCare, is based on an individual mandate, which Romney continues to defend. A presidential debate in 2008 featured the following exchange: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4091645&page=1&singlePage=true
GIBSON: But Gov. Romney's system has mandates in Massachusetts—although you backed away from mandates on a national basis.
ROMNEY: No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work
             Romney encouraged a broader use of government forcing individuals to make government mandated purchases, saying, “Everybody in our state has to have health insurance and that’s a model which I think has some merit more generally.”  http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-05-12-republican-romney-health-care-law-obama_n.htm
             Romney’s plan, like ObamaCare, fines those who don’t purchase insurance that is officially approved and heavily regulated through an “exchange” and subsidizes with taxpayer dollars such purchases
             Romney said of his plan, with its individual mandate, “exchange,” and heavy subsidies: “If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.” Obama and the Democrats agreed and did so. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-05-12-republican-romney-health-care-law-obama_n.htm
             Despite his previous suggestion that RomneyCare is a “model for the nation”, Romney is now trying to use the excuse that it was OK because it’s a state plan and states experiment. But it’s wrong for government at any level to violate our basic right to liberty by forcing citizens to buy a product as the individual mandate does.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703625304575115691871093652.html
             Romney Care a Job-Killer “Romneycare” — has cost Massachusetts more than 18,000 jobs, according to an exclusive blockbuster study http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_0915report_romneycare_a_killer_study_finds_bay_state_lost_thousands_of_jobs/srvc=home&position=0
             Romney advisers actually helped draft ObamaCare White House visitor logs obtained by NBC news revealed 3 of Romney’s healthcare advisers have about a dozen meetings with senior administration officials, including one meeting in Oval Office presided over by Obama
The facts are clear. To this day, Romney remains oblivious to conservative thought, values and first principles.
Romney: My Individual Mandate Health Care Plan Is Conservative
 Last month, on 9.29.2011 Romney says Individual Mandate is a "conservative idea", thanks Gingrich

2)  Ethanol Subsidies, Green Nonsense Romney still supports ethanol subsidies, even though by all conceivable metrics, they have failed miserably http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/27/romney_in_iowa_i_support_the_subsidy_of_ethanol_110011.html
             Romney worked to regulate “greenhouse gas emissions” in Massachusetts and got Massachusetts involved in a regional climate change pact According to Sandy Liddy Bourne of the American Legislative Exchange Council, "The Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan can be compared to a slick advertisement with no price tag. It is packaged with the same doom and gloom rhetoric of the environmental activists and commits the state government to long-term contracts for renewable energy without the benefits of a free market check-and-balance system.” http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15250/Massachusetts_Gov_Romney_Unveils_Climate_Protection_Plan.html
             Romney supports ethanol subsidies:  Romney makes no bones about it, he supports ethanol subsidies. “I support the subsidy of ethanol,” he told an Iowa voter. “I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.”  http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/05/27/romney-hearts-ethanol-subsidies/
             Romney goes so far as to support trade barriers on ethanol. http://www.iptv.org/iowajournal/story.cfm/143
             Romney still supports anti- Free market Ethanol Subsidies; while even environmental conman Al Gore confesses they were a mistake, done for political gain.  http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/11/al-gore-i-shouldnt-have-suppor.html       Let Ethanol Subsidies Die                                                                                            http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/16/congress-let-ethanol-subsidies
Al Gore's Ethanol Epiphany
Romney wants to increase spending “substantially” on energy research Romney also supports tax dollar energy subsidies in general, unequivocally stating in his 2008 campaign platform a need for a “dramatic” increase in “federal spending on research, development, and demonstration projects that hold promise for diversifying our energy supply.”   http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/4237358
             In 2008, Romney told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that “there’s nothing wrong with dealing with global warming.”  http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Energy_+_Oil.htm
             In 2004, as Governor of Massachusetts, Romney introduced the Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan to reduce greenhouse gases. The Heartland Institute finds, “Though mostly voluntary, some provisions of the plan are mandatory and will impose economic hardship on Massachusetts citizens.” http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15250/Massachusetts_Gov_Romney_Unveils_Climate_Protection_Plan.html
             Romney’s plan, much like the widely rejected Kyoto Protocol states its goals as:
             SHORT-TERM: Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2010.
             MEDIUM-TERM: Reduce GHG emissions 10% below 1990 levels by the year 2020.
             LONG-TERM: Reduce GHG emissions sufficiently to eliminate any dangerous threat to the climate; current science suggests this will require reductions as much as 75-85% below current levels. http://www.newamerica.net/files/MAClimateProtPlan0504.pdf
3)  Cap-and-Trade Romney still believes in the Man-Made global warming hoax- an insult to anyone with scientific integrity.  Romney supports a global cap-and-trade scheme and involved Massachusetts in a regional cap-and-trade pact. Romney was caught on video in New Hampshire in 2008 having this exchange with a potential voter
And Romney still believes it Man-Made-Global Warming in 2011!
Romney won praise from global warming profiteer Al Gore for saying, "I think it's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and global warming that you're seeing.
Having pushed carbon regulations Obama could only dream of, Romney uttered this line, which sounds eerily like what Obama would say, “These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment… They help us accomplish our environmental goals while protecting jobs and the economy.”
Romney joined activists outside a coal-fired plant in 2003 to show his commitment to the emissions caps. "I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant, that plant kills people," he said.
4)  Taxes Romney refused to support the Bush tax cuts in 2003. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/154741/romney-mccain-and-taxes/byron-york#  The Bush Tax Cuts kept unemployment below 5% for 6 years and made the average unemployment only 5.2% for Bush’s entire 2 terms.   Giving tax cuts to people without Jobs is like giving snow boots to someone lying on the beach.  It is not in the DNA of a true conservative to consistently promulgate failed liberal policies which have always made a bad situation worse.   Romney’s default proclivity to support statist, left-wing policies, is a systemic trait of elitists who are impelled to force their will on others without consideration of the consequences.  Also important is how Romney, so often incorporates Leftist word manipulation, into his messages (see #9 below). In the last debate, Romney referred to his plan to extend Bush Tax rates for families earning $250,000 and individuals earning $200,000 per annum, as tax cut.   Extending the Bush Tax rates which are currently in effect is not a tax cut!  Romney language is offensive and demeaning, but worst of all, it adds creditability to Obama’s defunct Class-Warfare argument.
Our Republic and way of life is under attack like never before in history; we need a clear minded, principled conservative to not just defeat Obama but to understand the extent of Obama’s destruction and reverse it.
 On its face, Romney confused liberal record is a disgrace to the Republican Party.  Not only do the facts show Romney as unprincipled; he simply refuses to understand  economic data(i.e.)Coolidge Administration, Kennedy Administration, Reagan Administration, George W. Bush  Administration, post WWII Germany, 1970’s Argentina, Japan 1971-1996 etc. Obama is of a different sort; he is one who willfully disregards historic precedent in favor of ideology.  If we assume Romney is not ideologically driven by Leftism, the only plausible explanation for his incessant support of adverse policies is a lack of education or a refusal/inability to discern quantitative raw data.  Furthermore, one can disregard history and focus solely on the abysmal consequences of President Obama’s policies over the last 3 years alone, which epitomize the failures of centralized Big Government economic planning (picking winners & losers) http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/news/articles/2011/09/obama-and-romney-mostly-agree-taxes  Nevertheless, Romney's record speaks volumes:

             Romney strongly opposes the pro-growth Flat Tax. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3423.html
              So much so that he, as a “concerned citizen” ran a newspaper ad opposing it. http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/03/mitt_romney_is.php
             Romney said, "I'm probably not going to be recommending throwing out the code and starting over” and using Marxist, Obama verbiage called the flat tax is “unfair.”   http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3423.html
              In 2002, while Romney was running for governor, limited government activists in Massachusetts were supporting Ballot Question 1 to eliminate the state income tax. Forty five percent of the voters supported eliminating the tax, Romney opposed eliminating it. http://www.jeffjacoby.com/8139/making-the-case-for-question-1
              When Romney ran for governor in 2002, he refused to sign a no-tax pledge. “I'm not intending to, at this stage, sign a document which would prevent me from being able to look specifically at the revenue needs of the Commonwealth."  http://www.jeffjacoby.com/8139/making-the-case-for-question-1
             Romney enacted $432 million in fee hikes and $300 million in higher taxes as governor of Massachusetts.  http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/10/11/mitts_no_tax_mirage/  
             Romney’s claim to not have raised taxes is called “mostly myth” by Cato Institute.  In a recent "Fiscal Policy Report Card" on governors, The Cato Institute gave him a "C." As far as the image Romney cultivates as "a governor who stood by a no-new-taxes pledge," Cato called it "mostly a myth." As evidence, they cited the hefty fee increases and business tax hikes achieved through the closing of loopholes.
             Romney proposed a tax shift that would have increased taxes on SUVs. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/mitts_memory_lapse.html
              Romney instituted a 2-cent-per-gallon increase on a special gasoline fee that takes in $60 million per year.
5)  Spending As Governor, Romney proposed a budget in 2007 that was an outrageous 8.5 percent higher than the one he proposed the year before.   Romney’s 2006 budget http://www.mass.gov/bb/fy2006h1/06budrec/govarea/ v. Romney’s 2007 budget http://www.mass.gov/bb/fy2007h1/2007budrec/govarea/ 
             Romney, despite calls from many fiscal conservatives to keep everything on the table when looking for spending cuts, recently stated that “I’m not going to cut the defense spending.”  http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/161489-romney-im-not-going-to-cut-the-defense-budget
             Romney parroted discredited Keynesian economic thinking when he wrote in No Apology, “The ‘all-Democrat’ stimulus that was passed in early 2009 will accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery.” http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44570
             Romney sounds a lot like Obama when he says in an op-ed to what was surely a fawning New York Times audience:
"I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research—on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like—that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html
6)  Stimulus Romney thought Obama’s stimulus would “accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery.   Although the cumulative text of Romney’s 2010 book, “No Apology” does state that the 1 Trillion dollar stimulus will help, but not as much as it could have had it included genuine tax- and job-generating incentives;   Romney fails to understand economic theory, which is inexcusable given the Keynesian model’s unequivocal record of failure.
             Below is an excerpt written by Romney in his 2010 Book “No Apology,” hardback version:
"The all Democrat Stimulus that was passed in early 2009 will accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery" Mitt Romney's 2010
Here’s what he changed the passage to for 2011 “No Apology,” paperback version: http://www.nationalreview.com/primary-event/278568/romneys-stimu-flop-katrina-trinko
  
The “all Democrat” stimulus passed in early 2009 has been a failure. 

 7)  Big Government Regulation of Private Sector In April 2009, clueless Romney told The Hill newspaper that: “We as Republicans misspeak when we say we don’t like regulation. We like modern, up-to-date dynamic regulation that is regularly reviewed, streamlined, modernized and effective.” (In practice, always performed by appointees with absolutely zero experience in industries they regulate) http://thehill.com/opinion/editorials/6536-regulatory-tide
8)  Government Bailouts/ The Wall Street Bailout Romney thinks it’s OK for companies to ask for bailouts, stating in a New York Times op-ed about the auto bailout, “It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition”  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html
              Romney supported the Wall Street Bailout/TARP program. In his book No Apology he says:
"Secretary [Hank] Paulson’s TARP prevented a systemic collapse of the national financial system."
"It was intended to prevent a run on virtually every bank and financial institution in the country."
"Had we not taken action, you could have seen a real devastation."
             Romney reaffirmed this position in 2009 saying, “I believe that it was necessary to prevent a cascade of bank collapses.”  http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/Romney_at_CPAC.html
             Tax Payers are still on the hook for $102 -$190 Billion they may never recoup. http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/9724418/article-AIG-bailout-exit-doesn-t-resolve-losses-from-TARP
 7)  Education Romney supports the Department of Education and somehow believes that the Federal Government helps States hold down the interests of Teacher’s Unions in favor of the kids and the kid’s parents first. Please explain to me on what planet Romney has experienced this phenomenon?  Romney’s failure to understand the anti-Democratic and destructive nature of government unions on our Republic is inexcusable. Does anyone remember Obama sending Governor Christie help to fight the teachers union in NJ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E26ADuXXS54&feature=related  (4.28)
This is inexcusable for a Republican Presidential candidate, given that even (D) FDR understood this in 1937. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445#axzz1VSrH5Oyw

8)  More Mitt:   record, character, ignorance
              Romney distanced himself from Reagan and Reagan’s policies.  During his Senate debate with Ted Kennedy, Romney made it clear he was not a fan of Ronald Reagan. Kennedy said to Romney, “Under your economic program, under the program of Mr. Reagan…” to which Romney responded, “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI
             Supports Affirmative Action and requirement that all public companies should be required to report the number of minorities, women and their income working in the company. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI
             Romney opposed the highly successful Contract with America which is another example of how Romney has no clue concerning the overriding goal of Democrat policies.  Romney didn’t like the Contract with America, saying “…it is not a good idea to go into a contract like what was organized by the Republican party in Washington laying out a whole series of things which the party said these are the things we are gonna do. I think that's a mistake.”  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jzno_apP1Q
             Romney supports reappointing Ben Bernanke to chairman of the Federal Reserve On Neal Cavuto, January 28 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX6T--U8Ll8
             Romney ran on raising the minimum wage and putting in place automatic increases by indexing it to inflation. A socialist, anti-free market idea which has helped teen and minority unemployment to skyrocket. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3407772&page=1
             Romney defends his welfare wheels from  GOP outrage  http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1374143&position=0
             Again, anyone with a whiff of economic knowledge, who’s spent 3 minutes researching the consequences of this deleterious lunacy;  could not have missed the plethora of data on this issue, going back to Milton Friedman, 40  years ago http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk
             Romney signed into law a Statist smoking ban.  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/595071548/Romney-signs-a-ban-on-workplace-smoking.html
              
             9)  Last Debate Romney agreed with Obama!  Romney only wants to keep Bush Tax cuts in place for those making $250,000 or less!  This is Obama‘s Class Warfare Argument and another example of Romney’s profound ignorance.  $250,000 was the number, most frequently chosen by participants at far-left, Democrat affiliated focus groups, in response to the question of who respondents considered ‘rich’.  Most likely, $250k corresponded with family income and $200K was the mode selection pertaining to individual earnings What makes the Democrat Party’s choice to base its platform on this premise particularly egregious is that participants in these focus groups, like most Americans, uniformly lack an understanding of the Tax Code and the IRS definition of a small business.  Ergo, the Democrats are using skewed polling results to justify ideological dictate. 
Romney’s mindset:
Given Obama’s history, past/present associations and now his presidential record; it is clear President Obama is a leftist.  There are but two alternatives: Romney agrees with Obama or Romney is oblivious to Obama’s underlying ideology.  Either one is enough to disqualify him from consideration.  Not to digress, but it is important to remember what Obama revealed in his answer to this tax question, during his 2008 debate with Hillary Clinton (cited below), in this primary debate with Hillary.  Since everyone reading this is intelligent, all of you will understand my point when you listen to then Senator Obama’s own words.  This clip may shock you, but it should serve to erase any remnant of good will you may harbor for our President, his policies and anyone who agrees with his tax policies.  Here you will see clear evidence that Obama‘s primary aim is to redistribute wealth and not to improve the economy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8  Romney shares this mindset, evident by his tax policy platform.
 10)  ROMNEY's Illegal Immigration Record;

The Romney campaign’s effort to portray Romney as a Tough Guy on Immigration is complete and utter NONSENSE!
 As governor, Romney talked about giving troopers the power to arrest on immigration charges early in 2006; but he did not sign the necessary agreement with the federal government, until December 13, 2006, when he was already considering a run for President.  Here’s the rub: Romney left office January 4, 2007, after Governor Elect, Deval Patrick had already said the program was a "bad idea" because troopers were busy enough as it was.  Hence, Patrick rescinded the agreement within his first week and Romney’s order never took effect.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that Governor Romney ever took a hard stance against Illegal immigration in Massachusetts’ at any time during his 4 year term.  During Romney’s tenure, at least four Massachusetts cities enacted or renewed legislation declaring themselves sanctuaries for illegal immigrants.  Brookline and Cambridge reaffirmed their longtime status as sanctuary cities; while Somerville and Orleans didn't officially deem themselves "sanctuaries," but Somerville affirmed its "long-standing policies in support of all immigrants," while Orleans forbade city officials from turning in illegal immigrants without probable cause.  For all intents and purposes, Governor Romney’s state had no fewer than 4 sanctuary cities, which he never objected to!  Conversely, even though Texas doesn’t have sanctuary cities, Perry designated the abolishment of sanctuary cities as an emergency item in January 2011 http://www.newstaco.com/2011/05/05/texas-legislature-looks-to-outlaw-sanctuary-cities/

FactCheck.org. is a left leaning Democrat site.  However, Romney’s illegal immigration record is sourced with links on the same page. http://www.factcheck.org/tough_guy_on_immigration.html

Liberal Mitt's Greatest Hits: What Romney Doesn't Want You to See.
In unison, all Obama supporting liberal pundits continue to say that "Romney is the most electable". Does anyone "of sane mind" actually believe that these people want to help us pick the candidate who's most likely to beat Obama?

Listening to Romney is as bad as listening to Warren Buffett talk about anything other than making money on Wall Street.  His record is indistinguishable from the record of a moderate 1980’s Democrat and depicts someone with absolutely no understanding of Constitutional Conservatism. If we are forced to support Romney for anything other than playing the Role of President in a Hollywood movie; America is screwed and so are we.  Even with a true conservative at the helm, the systemic damage leveled by Obama and his minions will take no less than a decade to root out and even then some of it will be irreversible.  Ergo, someone as vacuous in conservative reasoning as Romney, will at best temporarily slow down the rate off America's destruction, only for it to be picked up again by the next Democrat or confused Republican who comes to power.

Mitt Romney is not a social conservative. He is a center-leftist who will say anything in order to get elected in 2012.  Nothing he says can be trusted – he adapts himself to any environment  of the moment when campaigning – he says what people want to hear, and it is not at all what his actual record shows.

Romney is ridiculous:  1) He still believes in the Man-Made Global warming hoax.  2) He still Supports Ethanol Subsidies which have failed 100% by all conceivable metrics .   3)  He refuses to acknowledge that he screwed up with ’RomneyCare because he fails to understand the Conservative Constitutional Principles on which our nation was built; and that government intrusion into this area , serves to permanently change the relationship of Americans and their Government from “Citizens”, to “Subjects” of the State.  4) Like Obama, Romney uses the same Marxist class division verbiage to determine that Americans making under $200K need a tax break. How the hell will a tax break help people without a job or those who are underemployed? 
It’s virtually impossible to find a candidate, who everyone agrees with on each issue. What’s most important is to elect a leader.  It is always better to have a President that stands up for and intellectually supports a position (even if you disagree with it), than it is to have one without conviction, who flip-flops based on the latest poll.  Only the former is a “Leader".  For example, in the 1980’s, I had no opinion on the Abortion issue.  However, based on the advances in science and the ability to remove viable fetuses at earlier times during a pregnancy, I became fervently Pro-life.  Hence, with the mountains of information on this issue coming to light over the last decade, everyone, particularly a public figure, had what was necessary to take a position.  The Abortion issue is not a social program experiment or an economic disagreement.  For Romney to be so over-the-top Pro-Choice until less than 2 years ago, when the polls suddenly showed more than 50% of  Americans were Pro-life than Pro-abortion, leads me to question his character, his principles and his backbone.

Last month, on 9. 29. 2011 Obama spokesman, Jay Carney Quotes Mitt Romney Saying Individual Health Insurance Mandate ‘A Conservative Idea’

 Romney said “The Mass. Healthcare mandate was a conservative idea”?   Last Month, in defense of ObamaCare, President Obama said “All we did was copy the model of Mass made by its elected Republican Governor

Friday, May 21, 2010

Arizona's immigration law

Although Arizona's new immigration Law is similar to the Federal Law, already on the books, if anything it is far less problematic. Did you know that the Supreme Court already ruled, in a unanimous 2005 decision, MUEHLER V. MENA (03-1423)http://bit.ly/9o4N4s , that under Federal law,  the cops can pull you over for absolutely no reason and demand to see your immigration papers?


The issue in Mueler v. Mena was: Under what circumstances can a police officer stop you and ask you certain questions?
In this case the court ruled, verbatim:
"The officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth; or, immigration status"
*Therefore, the United States Law of the Land says that cops do not need reasonable suspicion or anything else to ask you about immigration status; however under the Arizona's Law they do! Therefore all of the Leftist media and illegal alien driven hoopla is complete nonsense and simply another example of race baiting by the left to avoid defending positions which are indefensible.
*The sole purpose of the Arizona law was to spotlight the Federal Government's failure to protect and close the boarder which has become a catastrophic financial and criminal burden for Arizona. In recent years Arizona has become the primary entrance point for illegal immigrants.  Uncontested figures say that today there are between 436,000 and 560,000 illegal aliens living in Arizona, who tax payers are forced to subsidize: housing, food, medical, education, legal....
*Racial profiling, is against the law everywhere in the United States and legal recourse is available when law enforcement steps over the line and someone has been damaged, via the 1983 US Federal Statute; § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1983.html
Arguing  a position relating to the probably of a hypothesis coming to fruition, is as ridiculous as saying, that since a lone police office has the ability to kill an innocent person, with his job issued revolver, society will be better off with an unarmed police force. In addition, this week, the disingenuous left has been forced to recant.  Both the President and his leftist Constitution hating lap dogs, A.G. Holder and Homeland Security Chief Napolitano have been forced to tone down their radical lies and now say that, “The law may lead to profiling or discrimination" which is a change from the vile rhetoric, they spewed for more than an entire month, which was that "The law was racist."
*Obama is failing and being destroyed on all fronts. The economy sucks, unemployment is 10%, his foreign policy exploits have been beyond ridiculous, every candidate he supports has been defeated (if you included primaries and Specter he is now 0-4) and his national poll numbers are the lowest ever recorded, for a president at this point of his term. This is why he and his cronies are doing their best to create a diversion and aim the spotlight on something other than their incompetence,
*Although many people in District 15 may be happy with President Obama and ignorant to the facts surrounding the AZ Law, it is important to know that these people and the liberal main stream media are in the minority. According to all Polls, both conservative and liberal Americans of both parties Democrats and Republicans support the Arizona law. Initial polling showed 74-78% of Arizonians in support of the poll and 59 to 65% of Americans in support of the law. Most Americans approve of Arizona's new immigration law. And by wide margins. According to Pew, the overall number is 59 percent. The New York Times poll came in at 60 percent. According to the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, that overall number is higher still: 64 percent.  However, new polling data this week shows that 79 to 84% of American Citizens support Arizona's new law. These figures are overwhelming and show that American citizens support Arizona's new law by more than 2 to 1 (the truth has a way of shining through).

The latest Fox Opinion Dynamics poll show 84% of Registered American voters favor the law, what’s even more interesting is that 75% of the self proclaimed Democrats (Including Hispanic Americans) also are in favor of the Arizona Law. http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/052010_Immigrationpdf.pdf   Question 35

A new Rasmussen Poll comes out tomorrow, but all polls indicate that the issue will inevitably further damage Obama and his leftist cohorts. The fact that yesterday, Obama allowed the President of Mexico to disparage the will of the American People and state in his speech from the White House that he was against Arizona's new law may represent the tipping point for many Americans. Here's the rub: if you are an illegal alien in Mexico you are subject to 2 years in prison. If you are an illegal alien and caught a second time, you are subject to a 10 year jail sentence. I have an idea; let's change American laws so they are identical to the immigration laws of Mexico, where illegal immigration is not a national problem. The hypocrisy here is beyond imagination.  In a sane world, insolent, contemptible statements like this would be condemned by the President of the United States as an insult to our national sovereignty.

Friday, January 29, 2010

More Theft of Citizen Tax Dollars for Obama's Union Cronies

Obama's latest high-speed train grant scheme is not only another egregious assault on capitalism, but also an enormous theft of American tax dollars. This is the most repugnant scam Obama has pulled off in weeks. Obama’s Socialist Grants stipulate that all persons employed, in any capacity on projects, must be union workers and receive full Union Compensation rates as well as benefits for their work.

So, let's see... only 7% of American Workers are in unions. Of this 7%, approximately 3.5% are teachers, traffic controllers, government employees etc. In addition, Florida, where one of these grants will be implemented, is a state where citizens have consistently voted against unionization. In reality, business sense dimwit, incompetent ideologue Obama is actually jamming Leftist, forced unionization, social re-engineering programs, down our throats, under the guise of job creation.

In short, Obama’s sucker grants of our money, will serve to destroy opportunity for non-union workers, as well as those who subsequently join unions to attain jobs. These rookie union members: will have no seniority, will face considerable probationary periods before their benefits vest and will be paid hourly wage rates, which are horrifically less than the tax dollar amounts received by the Union, for the hours worked.

Since the cost of these projects will necessarily be exorbitant (far above market value), free market commerce for competing parts, service and labor companies, not included in Obama’s grant, will effectively shut down. Furthermore, given that the government must borrow this money: available capital and money flow will remain constricted making it very difficult for private companies to borrow money. Aside from Obama, Union Bosses are the ones who will be unjustifiably benefit from this scam.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

“People are more conservative than they think but just fear the word CONSERVATIVE"


My response to a fellow conservative twitterer when she tweeted: “People are more conservative than they think but just fear the word CONSERVATIVE":

Your comment “People are more conservative than they think but just fear the word "conservative" is extremely significant. The thought of this truism, shocks my sensibilities and should serve as wake up call to everyone.
The fact that this mindset exists in American, is proof positive that Leftists have and continue to successfully undermine the foundation of every facet of our society.
It is fundamentally absurd for anyone to consciously choose, not to be associated with a word which represents: maximum independence, ultimate liberty and a conviction to maintain a system which bestows more freedom to the individual, than any system of governance, mankind has ever know.
The roots of this convoluted state of affairs can be traced back to the turn of the 20th century. This was when self-anointed intellectual/elitists, along with their Leftist cronies in the media, first began to manipulate, twist, and redefine the meaning of established ‘words’ to suit their agenda. Unfortunately, this unremitting, ulterior motive driven sabotage has accelerated to a point where success is no longer based on merit, but rather a composite formula of Politically Correct Idiocy. Frankly, this phenomenon is perhaps the most under reported and misunderstood dimension of the diabolical Left’s scheme to dominate our lives.

Given that their policy platforms have always failed miserably, without exception, Leftists must rely on trickery and deception to survive.  Incessantly, for over a century, they have systematically replaced, altered and substituted their own definitions for common, recognized, traditional words of our vernacular. This keen ability to clandestinely recreate the embodiment of traditional vocabulary is the most prolific tool in their arsenal of obfuscation.

History clearly shows that every word title, describing the filthy, parasitical Left, eventually becomes a disparaging embarrassing and undesirable title to possess. Once their true fascist evil becomes clear, to even the most naive members of the citizenry, they quickly move to disown their title or namesake. Very few of them refer to themselves as Liberal, because now most consider it a derogatory term. Even Obama the ‘Scammer and Chief’, never calls himself  a Liberal, instead he weasels around to paint himself as a ‘middle of the road’ kind of guy.

Remember, at the turn of the century, up until WWII, they referred to themselves as Progressives. Then after their true beliefs and mental dementia became obvious (Just go back and read some 1920's issues of Leftist Magazines like the "Nation", praising Stalin and Mussolini as the kind of leaders America should embrace), they had to quickly disassociate themselves from the title "Progressive". In short, it was a group of radical leftist revolutionaries in German, who brainstormed and decided to usurp the word Liberal from the word "Liberalism", which had long-standing roots going back to the Roman Empire, "the Age of Enlightenment", and was later used by John Locke to define life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Note: Liberalism was the definition of the belief system associated with "Strict Conservatism". Ironically, they disingenuously hijacked the root of an adjective for Conservatism and defined their new word to describe its antithesis! Clearly, they have always been rotten to the core. Unfortunately, the Left controls the school systems and habitually rewrites history.  Today the vast majority of our citizenry is poorly educated on US history and oblivious to the story I described.

As expected, in accordance to their sleazy protocol, Leftists have again begun to refer to themselves as 'Progressives'. Nothing they promulgate has ever been successful or improved the standard of living one iota for any population in the history of the planet. Furthermore, not only have their delusional policies, always failed miserably, without exception-they have always made things worse for the majority of the people who have been subjugated by them.

In Sum:

• They don’t admit they are Leftist, Liberal or Progressive.

• They can not support their fantasy rhetoric with intelligence or anything representing a cogent, fact based argument.

• They constantly steal twist and redefine words to disparage their opponents and force others to succumb to their agenda.

• They follow the same egregious playbook for every issue, policy, position and opinion. This directs them to:

1) Avoid giving or talking about the details, repercussions, tradeoffs or subsequent consequences of your proposals

2) Never answer any questions about their positions or get drawn into discussing the facts, even if the concerns addressed are indeed legitimate. Instead, continuously launch personal attacks on the individuals who do not support your policy objectives.

3) Last but not least, for every single policy position taken, pick a villain and do whatever is possible to destroy that entity or person, regardless of whether or not he, she, or it can be legitimately connection to the issue of contention.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Scammer and Chief Obama's Free on Discretionary Spending Ploy is More LEFTIST SOPHISTRY!


Be prepared to cringe tomorrow when our Scammer and Chief delivers his latest slight of hand, Obfuscation Address. It pains me to consider all of the ignorant people, who may actually be swayed into believing that he is acting frugally. His catastrophically disingenuous, Freeze Discretionary Spending does not include: 

  • The unspent $522 Billion from the $843 Billion scam stimulus, nor


  • The $483 Billion 2010 Omnibus Spending Bill, which was added after OBAMA passed the biggest budget in our Nation's history (during a recession) and let’s not forget


  • The $285 Billion of repaid TARP money, which was supposed to be returned to the Treasury when paid back.


As we speak, Congress is about to pass, a second $146-$180 Billion dollar, waste of money, Keynesian Stimulus Bill (also not included), and of course don't forget ObamaCare, which is still lurking in the shadows. But what is worse and even more egregious is the fact that last year, during a recession, Obama, systematically increased all Federal Government agencies an average of 26% above their 2008 total budgets. So now by freezing spending, he is creating an entirely new baseline, at far higher numbers than what they were when he took office. Did I mention we were in a recession? And if this wasn't bad enough, when Obama took office in 2009, he immediately gave a presidential order to increase the legal limit amount of Discretionary Spending by $40 Billion from its ending level in 2008. In 2010, Obama increased the allowable limit for discretionary spending an additional $100 Billion more! So, in total he has already increased the permitted discretionary spending limit $140 Billion dollars per year, from what it was when he took office-AND THIS IS SEPARATE FROM ALL THE OTHER SPENDING HE HAS BEEN SIGNING OFF.

Obama’s spending freeze is on top of an 84% increase in domestic discretionary spending that he signed into law; the freeze is delayed one year. So it really isn’t fiscal discipline, it’s the rhetoric of fiscal discipline but the policy of the opposite. If a freeze on spending is urgent, why suspend for a year?

The tax credit idea he’s talking about, when that’s been tried before in the Carter administration, it didn’t work. So we are looking at what works to grow the economy and this doesn’t work. More importantly the debt and the deficit are just getting out of control and the administration is still pumping through billions upon trillions of new spending- That does not grow the economy. If borrowing and spending led to more jobs, then we’d be at full employment already.

Friday, January 8, 2010

Response to Conservative friend concerning ills of California



Cheryl, I wholeheartedly agree that California is a disgrace. Everything you touched on is true, but the only way to get a grip on California’s advanced disease is to regain Control of our Nation. Unfortunately, the situation is analogous to stage four cancer and requires more than pragmatic treatment. In short, I deduce that a primary driver of California’s demise is the unionization of Government employees, the roots of which can be traced to the unionization of our failing public school systems. I believe that industrial unions successfully helped our society flourish and protect workers throughout the manufacturing boom of the 20th century. However, the creation of public government unions have and continue to destroy our country (SEIU is the largest and under Obama its grip is increasing tenfold). Last month, the nation lost another 88,000 jobs, while during the same month Obama hired 3000 new government employees, all of which are now new SEIU members. Subsequently, the economy lost only 85,000 jobs.


If you stomach isn’t turning already, listen to this: the average salary of a California Government employee (all localities, counties, cities, community colleges etc. included.) is $136,000 + benefits (healthcare & retirement pensions which push the mean well over $150K). The average annual salary of an American citizen is $60,000 per year and in California, with their Leftist open boarder policies, is only $45,000! This scenario is outrageous!



Never in history have non-competitive, paper pushing, safe from poor performance termination, government jobs been more economically lucrative than those of the free-market! It is impossible for a Republic to survive under these conditions!


Unions are created to balance the power prism when business organizations are adversarial in nature (IE) factory company owners and the workers. Given this incontrovertible fact, who the hell is the adversary of Government employees, the tax payer? Our government represents us, “We the People”!  All of which I described is part of the Left’s diabolical plan to destroy capitalism and America as we know it.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Jimmy Carter and the lowlife despicable Race Baiters


The underlying premise used by race baiters to base their argument is flawed. They employ a ludicrous line of reasoning, which is aimed at ending the conversation and unjustly destroying the credibility of alternate opinions. Would it be fair to declare racist all Black men, who disagree with opinions put forth by white men? Following that line of reasoning, only serves to discredit the integrity of people offering tenable criticism. Open discussion and the exchange of ideas, including constructive criticism, is precisely what our system is all about and what makes it work. Evoking the "Race Card" is cowardly, lacks intellectual heft and amplifies the weakness of one’s argument. It represents a sure-fire way to change the conversation and force an off point response, which has nothing to do with the issue of discussion. Disingenuous dimwits, who unwarrantedly employ this tactic, are a disgrace to civilized society. Concerning Anti-Semite, former President Jimmy Carter: just remember, he is the only human being on the planet with not just 1, but 2 of his books on Bin Laden’s recently released “Must Read” list. Furthermore, President Obama received a higher percentage of the White vote than Kerry. All of Obama’s outrageous, insane and destructive policies are failing! President Obama is unlike any President in our Nation's History, he is a far left radical, who is stopping at nothing to fundamentally change the systemic fabric of our great Nation.


The whole point of the Obama Campaign, for a lot of Liberals, was that he was going to help us, transcend race and what that’s really turning out to mean is: If you disagree with Obama, you are against transcending race; therefore you must be a racist. In turn, as the Democrats get more and more desperate, that argument, which they have already used against the tea party folks, which they’ve used against the elderly Americans attending town halls, will be used to limit our input. Trust me, with far left radical, NY Times columnists and Obama hand puppets, Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd banging their spoons on each other’s high chairs every week, claiming that everything points to racism, the situation is going to get far worse before it gets better.


It’s not just health care, that’s kind of the fulcrum (right now) for the public discontent. I would argue that it goes way deeper and it goes to a general distrust of what the Obama Federal Government says it’s going to do, want it wants to do, and what actually will transpire. That’s the chasm and that is what the Democratic Politicians are having a hard time bridging. Everything they say doesn't make sense and the American People do not believe the nonsense President Obama continues to force feed them. Regardless of what, smooth operator, Obama says: ObamaCare is Health Care redistribution, it takes $500 Billion dollars of health care from the elderly in Medicare and Medicaid funds for nursing homes and gives it to people who are younger, healthier and richer but at the moment lack health insurance - And that redistribution is something that seniors can not and will not support!



In reality, everything we are discussing here is meaningless. Obama is a radical and radicals believe that they are in the army of the saints and that they are the righteous people. Obama’s history proves he doesn’t like to debate his opponents/ critics, he has to destroy them. This is clear by the fact that his run for president was the first campaign where he actually had a legitimate opponent and not a last minute replacement for the one whose character had been destroyed. History will prove that nothing Obama has done or intends to do, will have contributed to improving the welfare of our great Nation. His administration is driven by a quest for power, and the power is actualized by recreating things into a different reality then they originally were. Whether or not “the change” results in an improved condition is immaterial. It’s all about power. Radicals adopt positions and take up issues, simply to advance their power. They never think of what it’s going to look like, or how to put it together. Until the cap & tax bill, which they temporarily put on the back burner and heath care, Obama was able to pass bills without inspection. Now, given the abysmal failure of his policy proposals quickly coming to light, the citizenry finally woke up. I can tell you, but anyone can see for themselves: that before he is challenged, a radical never spends 5 seconds on thinking what his policies will subsequently do in practice. President Obama has proven this by the fact that he hasn’t written any of the bills he has relentlessly supported. In fact, until he hit a road block with ObamaCare, he never even concerned himself with the details of the egregious policies he signed into law. Case in point: anyone with a sense of economic literacy knows that his aberrant Stimulus Bill was not aimed at job creation, which is the only objective of an economic stimulus bill.


Radicals like Obama never spend time discerning what makes a society work, because if what they do leads to crisis, they will be able to make even more systemic changes to the landscape. This is the way they work; they want to know what they can get away with; to advance this big agenda-which is = you get power and change everything.