Tuesday, October 30, 2012

If Obama is re-elected can you imagine the mess he is going to inherit?

Tea Party Tribune ^ | 2012-10-30 13:58:39 | Gil Guignat



Romney helping Hurricane Sandy victims in Kettering, Ohio source: unskewedpolls.com

On July 21,2012 we said that by 8:00 PM West Coast time the election would be called for Governor Romney. We still think this will be so. Worse than Hurricane Sandy is Hurricane Romney and it just does not look like it will stop until it gets what it wants. It can smell victory and will get it as long as it destroys any remnant of defeat!
Can you imagine the excuses President would make for the mess he has created in his first term, if he were re-elected? He would have to stay up night after night to make lists of excuses why the country is in such shambles and he could have the hubris to say that this was not his fault because he inherited this big economic mess from himself. He has had every other excuse for his failures. Don't laugh. His administration is dripping one absurd assertion after the other. Nothing makes sense anymore when it comes to President Obama and his traveling circus.
The good news for President Obama is that he will not have to work hard at excuse making because he won't need to make any. It sure looks like he is going to lose and lose really big.
**Gallup Shock** Romney Up 52-45% Among Early Voters
"Very early on, before this campaign started in earnest, live or die, I publicly cast my lot with Gallup and Rasmussen. As a poll addict going back to 2000, these are the outlets that have always played it straight.(snip)So when an outlet like Gallup tells me Romney is up seven-points, 52-45%, among those who have already voted, that's very big news." More...
Latest Rasmussen polls protect Romney to win 279+ electoral votes

"According to the latest Rasmussen state polls, Mitt Romney is in position to win the presidency; he should win at least 279 electoral votes." More...

Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media have painted such a rosy picture that President Obama is going to win easily that most may not even show up to vote. After all, with hurricane Sandy pummeling the Eastern Seaboard most democrats in the Northeast (blue country) will probably prefer to stay inside and recover from the devastation of the hurricane assuming that there are more than enough democrats to bring President Obama to victory. Republicans on the other hand will crawl through broken glass to get to the polls rather than sit this one out. Perhaps that is why the polls are painting a much different picture for Governor Romney's prospects.
What everyone is now realizing is that there really is a difference between the parties. "R" stands for recovery and "D" stands for depression which is why all of the sudden out of nowhere (yah! Right) Governor Romney is surging really big. People want recovery and prosperity and are fed up with President Obama's managed depression. Americans know what our economic engine is capable of and President Obama is simply not suited for this American expectation of economic and personal American exceptionalism.
Yesterday, President Obama flew to Florida and then touched down on Air Force One and took off again and went back home to Washington, DC. The reason was that this would show Americans that the president was in charge and managing the hurricane devastation. Governor Romney on the other hand took time off from his campaign and went to Kettering, Ohio to work distributing food for hurricane victims. What's wrong with this picture? The polls know what is wrong and are reflecting it abundantly. Remember! At 8:00 PM west coast time November 6th, conservative America will be back with the adults in charge once again. See you all at the top.

Right to Work States



Shock to Obama Camp: Gallup finds early voters favor Romney 52-47%

American Thinker ^ | 10/30/2012 | Thomas Lifson

The Gallup Organization has some very bad news for the Obama camp, but is being discreet about it, entombing it at the bottom of an article innocuously titled "In U.S., 15% of Registered Voters Have Already Cast Ballots."
Given the apparent intimidation of Gallup by the Department of Justice, it is only prudent to once again bury the lede. But that does not make the news any less painful for Obamaites, who have been counting on a supposed ground game and early voting advantage.
John Nolte of Breitbart has no such compunctions about delivering the bad news from Gallup:
Romney currently leads Obama 52% to 45% among voters who say they have already cast their ballots. However, that is comparable to Romney's 51% to 46% lead among all likely voters in Gallup's Oct. 22-28 tracking polling. At the same time, the race is tied at 49% among those who have not yet voted but still intend to vote early, suggesting these voters could cause the race to tighten. However, Romney leads 51% to 45% among the much larger group of voters who plan to vote on Election Day, Nov. 6. When Gallup says early voters don't seem to be swaying the election, presumably what they means is that because Romney is ahead by five points nationally, an early voting advantage of seven-points isn't going to "sway the election."
Romney's early voting lead in Gallup may not jive with the CorruptMedia narrative, but it does with actual early vote totals that have been released and show Romney's early vote totals either beating Obama in swing states such as Colorado and Florida or chipping away at the President's advantage in the others.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

FAMILIES PAY $3000 MORE FOR INSURANCE; OBAMA PROMISED $2500 DECREASE!

breitbart ^ | 9/25/2012 | by JOEL B. POLLAK

President Barack Obama promised that Obamacare would cut family health insurance premiums by $2,500 by the end of the first term--but instead they have risen by $3,000, according to a new Kaiser Family Foundation study cited by Investor’s Business Daily. The cost of health insurance today is more than 50% higher than Obama promised it would be--and the costs are expected to continue to rise as Obamacare is impemented. John Merline of Investor's Business Daily notes the rising costs specifically contradict a campaign promise Obama reiterated several times, including in debates with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and at events along the 2008 campaign trail. Furthermore, the data show that the rise in family premium costs, largely attributable to the costs of complying with Obamacare, has outpaced the rise in costs under eight years in the previous four years of George W. Bush. Health insurance companies have already been required to provide additional coverage for so-called “children” up to age 26, among other changes. That coverage is described by Obama as “free,” but in fact the costs are borne by other patients.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


T'was the night before elections, And all thru' the town, Tempers were flaring Emotions ran up and down.
I, in my bathrobe With a cat in my lap, Had shut off the TV, tired of political crap.
When all of a sudden, There arose such a noise, I peered out my window, Saw Obama and his boys
They had come for my wallet, They wanted my pay To hand out to others Who had not worked a day!
He snatched up my money, And quick as a wink, Jumped back on his bandwagon As I gagged from the stink.
He then rallied his henchmen Who were pulling his cart. I could tell they were out To tear my country apart!
'On Fannie, on Freddie, On Biden and Ayers! On Acorn, on Pelosi' He screamed at the pairs!
They took off for his cause, And as they flew out of sight, I heard him laugh at a nation Who wouldn't stand up and fight!
So I leave you to think on this one final note... IF YOU DON'T WANT SOCIALISM, GET OUT AND VOTE !!!!
(Author unknown)

Cindy Sheehan Was Cheered, Charles Woods Is Ignored!

IBD EDITORIALS ^ | October 30, 2012

Libya: As the father of a former Navy SEAL slain at Benghazi wonders why our secretary of state lied to him, we wonder why our CIA director abetted a lie that contradicted counterterrorism officials and the FBI.
During the 2004 presidential campaign, a media eager to deny George W. Bush a second term made Cindy Sheehan, who lost a son in Iraq, a national heroine and reported virtually her every word and move.
"Cindy Sheehan," gushed NBC News, "is single-handedly bringing the Iraq debate to Mr. Bush's doorstep."
But nobody in a mainstream media eager to see President Obama get a second term is bringing the Benghazi debate to the White House doorstep. On all the Sunday talk shows, when Benghazi was brought up, the moderator quickly changed subjects.
On CNN's "State of the Union," Candy Crowley, who came to the aid of President Obama on Benghazi during the second presidential debate, sloughed off attempts by two GOP officials to broach Benghazi.
When Newt Gingrich raised Benghazi on ABC's "This Week," host George Stephanopoulos quickly changed topics. NBC's David Gregory cut off GOP panelist Carly Fiorina when she brought up Benghazi, promising to "get to that a little later." Of course, he never did.
Nor is Gregory or the others likely to pursue an interview with Charles Woods, father of Ty Woods, one of the SEALs killed in Benghazi.
A few conservative outlets have talked to him, notably Fox News, and he's had much to say about how and why his son was abandoned by the government he served.
Woods is especially angry "that apparently the White House situation room was watching our people die in real time, as this was happening."
If Cindy Sheehan had made such a comment, it would have led every evening newscast.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...

Yard Sign

Obama Gives Up, Goes Back to DC to Work On His Exit Package!

My Fertile Brain by Steely Tom

Let me tell you something boys and girls:
Obama has given up. He knows it's over.

He made this decision in Florida when he decided to "come back to Washington to direct the Sandy relief effort."

Poppycock.

He knows he's going down, and he came back to DC to (a) spare himself the anguish of having his narcissistic supply on the campaign trail, and (b) to plot the course of his final 83 das in office.
Part of the latter is this: what kind of deal is he going to be able to make to get himself and his cronies off the hook for any number of bombs he's now got ticking under himself. These include all the ones we know about - Benghazi, F&F, the "green" companies - plus (I'm sure) many others.
How does he get the best deal for himself on these? Who among his inner circle does he include in the deal?
The "deal" includes many elements. Obama still has many cards to play between election night and 20-Jan-2013.
Obviously, he has the pardon pen. A biggie.
He also has all kinds of nasty things he can do with Presidential power. He can, for instance, bargain over what he does with the vast amount of classified information he has direct control over. He can reclassify much of this at his whim, on the basis of an Executive Order.
He can make things Top Secret that are currently Secret. And he can convert anything he wants to Unclassified as well.
He can - and, I'm betting, will - play hardball with this against the Republicans in the House and Senate who are coming after him on all kinds of issues.
Nasty, but one must expect nasty from this guy, who cares not a whit for the United States and never has.
Another thing to consider: Do we really want to "go after him" for everything, even after he's out of office?
Making kidnappers or rapists eligable for the death penalty simply increases the chance that they'll see no upside to letting their victims live once the criminal knows he has no chance for escape.
Same here. Do we benefit more - as a country - by letting Obama and his claque swim away, or do we continue to press for justice after they're gone?

Libya

Why Accept Contraception as a Women's Issue?

American Thinker ^ | October 30, 2012 | Selwyn Duke

While many points have been made about this campaign's contraception controversy, there's one that I haven't yet heard anyone mention.

Why do we accept contraception as a women's issue?

After all, there is a prophylactic designed for use by men, and insurance policies would have covered it no more than they would female birth control. Even more significantly, contraception is unnecessary unless there's the possibility of conception, something impossible without the participation of a man. In other words, contraception is always used by both sexes.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

None Like This

(IBD) At Least Carter Tried A Rescue - Benghazi Stand Down Order A Mystery - General Relieved

True Conservatives on Twitter ^ | October 30, 2012

Benghazi: The president says the election has nothing to do with four brave Americans getting killed, but, as in 1980 at another embassy, it should — just as it matters who gave the order to stand down.
We have speculated that a reason the cries for military help during the seven-hour assault on our consulate in Benghazi were ignored was due to fears of another "Blackhawk down" incident as in Somalia under President Clinton or a repeat of the Desert One mission that crashed and burned in the Iranian desert in a failed attempt to rescue our hostages in Tehran in 1980.
After all, according to Richard Miniter's book "Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him," it was at the urging of White House adviser Valerie Jarrett that President Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden three times before finally approving the May 2, 2011, Navy SEAL mission. Her concern: the political harm to Obama if the mission failed.
As we've written, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has falsely said we didn't have real-time intelligence of the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi. The administration has also suggested it was the CIA that put the brakes on any attempt at relief or rescue.
ABC's Jake Tapper reports that a CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA Director David Petraeus, has put out a statement saying, "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."
(Excerpt) Read more at tcotblog.ning.com ...

Report: Enough Spent on Welfare Programs in 2011 to Write Every Poor Household a $59,523 Check

CNS News ^ | October 30, 2012 | Matt Cover

The federal government spent enough money on federal means-tested welfare programs to have sent each impoverished household a check for nearly $60,000, according to figures from the Census Bureau and the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
According to a report from the CRS produced for Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), $1 trillion was spent on federal welfare programs during fiscal year 2011 – with $746 billion in federal funds and $254 in state matching funds.
The U.S. Census Bureau reported that there were approximately 16.8 million households living below the federal poverty level of $23,000 per year for a family of four in 2011. ( See: 2011 Households Below Poverty 2011.pdf )
If each of the estimated 16.8 million households with income below the poverty level were to have received an equal share of the total welfare spending for fiscal year 2011, they each would have received $59,523.
If only the 2011 federal share of welfare spending (no state matching funds) were spent as direct cash payments, each household would have received $44,404, which is nearly double the federal poverty level for a family of four.
This federal welfare spending does not include programs such as Medicare and Social Security, because they are not means-tested programs. Means-tested programs are those that only pay out benefits to people whose incomes fall below a certain threshold, such as food stamps, traditional cash welfare, and Medicaid.
In other words, if the government were to discontinue its myriad federal welfare programs, such as housing vouchers, food stamps, and Medicaid, and instead just wrote every poor household a check, it would nearly quadruple their income: increasing it from at most $23,000 per year to nearly $83,000 per year.


The IRS Tax Form for Obamacare Individual Mandate

ATR ^ | 2012-10-29 | [Staff]

As a service to the public, Americans for Tax Reform has released a projected tax form to help families and tax specialists prepare for the additional filing requirement required by the Affordable Healthcare Act's individual mandate.

Starting in 2014, all Americans who file income tax returns must complete an additional IRS tax form. The new form requires disclosure of a taxpayer’s personal identifying health information in order to determine compliance with the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. As confirmed by IRS testimony to the tax-writing House Committee on Ways and Means, “taxpayers will file their tax returns reporting their health insurance coverage, and/or making a payment”.

You may download a PDF file of form here or view it [back in ATR.]

Highlights from the Obamacare Individual Mandate Tax Compliance Form:

1. Determination of “qualifying” health insurance. Under the Affordable Care Act, most Americans must purchase health insurance deemed “qualified” by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) starting in 2014. Failure to comply with this mandate results in a tax penalty which must be paid to the IRS. The tax penalty ranges from $695 to $2085, or more, depending on the size of a family. The dollar amount grows over time and is tabulated on the form. Taxpayers must demonstrate that they obtained qualifying health insurance for each month of the year in order to avoid payment of this tax penalty. [See lines 12-13]
2. Disclosure of personal identifying health information. Every family that files a tax return (140 million households) will have to disclose whether or not they were covered by a qualifying plan, in which months they were covered, and what type of coverage they received. Tax filers must also divulge and disclose their personal health ID number, the nature of their health insurance, and other information from their health insurance card as further IRS regulations warrant. [See lines 3-4]
3. Exemptions from Individual Mandate: Prisoners, Undocumented Immigrants, Welfare Recipients. The form also determines which individuals are exempt from the Individual Mandate and non-compliance taxes. Classes of individuals who are exempt from the mandate include but are not limited to: those serving sentences in the federal penitentiary system; those persons not legally able to work in the U.S.; welfare recipients; and those qualifying for an HHS-granted religious exemption. [See lines 8-11]
4. IRS penalties and interest on unpaid mandate taxes. Because the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate penalty is a tax, the IRS will be able to assess interest and non-criminal penalties on those families who will not or cannot pay the tax. The IRS will issue regular, periodic correspondence audits to these families to help them comply with their filing responsibilities.
Read more: http://atr.org/irs-tax-form-obamacare-individual-mandate-a7274#ixzz2AoagMD9V

Higher Taxes on the Rich Mean Higher Taxes on the Rest of Us!

Townhall.com ^ | October 30, 2012 | Daniel J. Mitchell

President Obama repeatedly assures us that he only wants higher taxes on the rich as part of his class-warfare agenda.
But I don’t trust him. In part because he’s a politician, but also because there aren’t enough rich people to finance big government (not to mention that the rich easily can alter their financial affairs to avoid higher tax rates).
Honest leftists are beginning to admit that their real target is the middle class. Here are a few examples.
In other words, politicians often say they want to tax the rich, but the real target is the middle class. Indeed, this is the history of tax policy. In a post earlier this year, warning the folks in the Cayman Islands not to impose an income tax, I noted how the U.S. income tax began small and then swallowed up more and more people.
…the U.S. income tax began in 1913 with a top rate of only 7 percent and it affected less than 1 percent of the population. But that supposedly benign tax has since become a monstrous internal revenue code that plagues the nation today.
The same thing is true elsewhere in the world.
Allister Heath explains for London’s City A.M. newspaper.
The introduction of income taxes around the world have tended to follow a very similar pattern over the past couple of centuries. First, we get generally low income tax rates, with most people exempt and with the highest rate only affecting a few people relatively lightly. Eventually, tax rates shoot up for everybody – including to crippling levels for top earners – and millions more are caught by income tax. The next stage is that the ultra-high tax rates for top earners are reduced to manageable levels – but ever more people are brought into the tax system, with the higher brackets also catching vastly more folk.
By the way, you can see that Allister makes a reference to tax rates being reduced for top earners. That’s largely because many politicians learned an important lesson about the Laffer Curve. Sometimes, the best way to “soak the rich” is by lowering their tax rates. Unfortunately, President Obama still needs some remedial education on this topic.
Allister then looks at some specific U.K. data revealing how more and more middle class people are now subject to higher tax rates.
The biggest change in the UK has been the number of people paying what is now the 40p tax rate: up six-fold in thirty years, from 674,000 in 1979-80, 2.5m in 1999-2000 to 4.048m in 2011-12. This number will jump again to around 5m in 2014, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. When Margaret Thatcher came to power, just 2.6 per cent of taxpayers paid the top rate; by the time of the next election, 16.7 per cent will.
If Obama and other statists get their way, we’ll see similar statistic in the United States. Higher income tax rates for the rich will mean higher income tax rates for the rest of us. Though I’m even more worried about a value-added tax, which would be a huge burden on ordinary people and a revenue machine for greedy politicians.
It’s worth noting, by the way, that the American tax code actually is more “progressive” than the tax codes of Europe’s welfare states. This is largely because we don’t screw over poor and middle-class taxpayers with a VAT.
P.S. Since I mentioned the Laffer Curve above, I should emphasize that the goal of good tax policy should be to maximize growth, not to maximize tax revenue.
P.P.S. And don’t forget that poor and middle-income taxpayers also will be hurt because slower growth is an inevitable consequence when tax rates climb and the burden of government spending increases.

Ahmadinejad calling



By Tom Purcell






http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad phones President Obama's private line. Obama answers.

"Why are you calling me, Ahmadinejad? You know we're not ready for one-on-one talks."

"But Mahmoud and the mullahs worried about American election! We worry Obama will lose!"
"I'm not going to lose, you nut job. People love me here. I give them other people's money."
"But Mahmoud think Romney use Iran to score big points in debate. He scare people into thinking Iran developing nuclear weapons and that you not do enough to stop us!"
"That's not true. My sanctions are killing your economy and if anyone knows how to slow an economy, I'm your guy."
"But Romney threaten to make Iran sanctions worse. Mahmoud and the mullahs fear he will block American cable TV just as 'Dancing with Stars' getting good."
"Romney isn't as tough as I am. I killed Osama bin Laden."
"Here's what really worries Mahmoud: Romney threaten to indict me under United Nations genocide convention for my threats to eliminate Israel. Mahmoud like Obama much better."
"You like me! If you don't stop the development of nuclear weaponry, I'm going to be your worst nightmare."
"But Romney is Republican like those crazy Bush presidents. The Bushes say they will attack Middle East and then do — three times!"
"Yeah, well, when I'm in a second term and don't have to run again, you better give up nuke production or I'll really let you have it. I have Israel's back, buddy."
"But Obama not visit Israel. You visit other countries in region. While in other countries, you say America has been arrogant and dismissive. You say America has made its share of mistakes. Mahmoud like such words!"
"You're quoting me out of context, you zealot. I was merely trying to distance myself from the reckless policies of my predecessor."
"Mahmoud really like how Obama sit on sidelines when uprising break out in Iran. Obama let Mahmoud and mullahs squash protesters before they succeed. Mahmoud like that!"
"You better watch your step or I will squash you."
"Mahmoud more worried that Romney squash Iran. Mahmoud fear that Obama's policies in Middle East make him look weak — that Obama olive branch is backfiring and that Middle East hate America just as much as ever."
"Not true. My charm is working on the people there. It takes time, but they'll come around."
"But radicals kill your ambassador in Libya. Violence breaking out all over. Al-Qaida is far from dead. Obama appeasement policies no seem to be working. No wonder American voters think Obama lack respect, which allows Mahmoud and the mullahs to keep building nuclear weapon. That's why Mahmoud want to help Obama!"
"Help me? How can a crazed half-dictator help me?"
"First, Mahmoud cut deal with tough dictators and shady leaders from around world. They all endorse Obama in public now — not good for Obama image. So Mahmoud persuade them to NOT endorse you."
"What are you talking about, you madman?"
"Mahmoud get Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to complain about Obama being hard on him, then he break down crying on TV!"
"Go on."
"Then Russian President Vladimir Putin go on TV and say you negotiate too tough and get the better of him."
"Keep going."
"Then Mahmoud complain that Iran can't take tough Obama sanctions anymore and Iran finally give up nuclear bomb ambitions!"
"Nice try, Ahmadinejad, but you have a long history of mistruths and exaggerations. How can I trust that you will do what you say you will do?"
"Funny, but Mahmoud wonder very same thing about Obama."

NYT: Big storm requires big government!

Michelle Malkin ^ | 10/30/12 | Doug Powers

Just a couple of days ago, the New York Times endorsed Barack Obama for re-election. Hurricane Sandy has given the Times a rare opportunity for a follow-up endorsement while pointing out how dangerous Romney/Ryan could be at times like these. Here’s the title of yesterday’s NYT editorial:
“A Big Storm Requires Big Government”
Forget that we don’t even know the extent of the loss and damage from this storm yet, or what the federal government’s role will end up being or even how effective (or not) it will prove to be — bring on more big government.
But big government can also be a huge hindrance to local efforts. Don’t take my word for it though, ask President Obama, who, during hurricane prep, offered to briefly loan local officials the key to temporarily unlock the rules & regs handcuffs that inherently accompany big-government and bloated federal bureaucracy:
“My message to the governors as well as to the mayors is anything they need, we will be there, and we will cut through red tape,” Mr. Obama said. “We are not going to get bogged down with a lot of rules.”
There will be plenty of time to get back to being bogged down by a lot of rules and red tape later. More rules and red tape if the New York Times gets its way — and those usually aren’t assets when it comes to emergency response.
One of the many problems with the “big government” that the Times has endorsed is that it doesn’t just sit in the bullpen waiting to be called in when a “big storm” hits. It needs things to do in the meantime — lots of things. Big government likes to stay occupied.

Cardinal Dolan Implies That Obama Lied to Him!

Courageous Priest ^ | October 29, 2012 | Cardinal Timothy Dolan

Over the last six months or so, the Catholic Church in the United States has found itself in some tension with the executive branch of the federal government over a very grave issue: religious freedom. Can a government bureau, in this case the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), define for us or any faith community what is ministry and how it can be exercised? Can government also coerce the church to violate its conscience?
Obama had personally assured me that he would do nothing to impede the good work of the Church in health care, education, and charity, and that he considered the protection of conscience a sacred duty This has not been a fight of our choosing. We’d rather not be in it. We’d prefer to concentrate on the noble tasks of healing the sick, teaching our youth, and helping the poor, all now in jeopardy due to this bureaucratic intrusion into the internal life of the church. And we were doing all of those noble works rather well, I dare say, without these radical new mandates from the government. The Catholic Church in America has a long tradition of partnership with government and the wider community in the service of the sick, our children, our elders, and the poor at home and abroad. We’d sure rather be partnering than punching.
(Excerpt) Read more at courageouspriest.com ...

Poll: Military Supports Romney 3-1!

Breitbart's Big Government ^ | October 28, 2012 | William Bigelow

The battle-hardened veterans of the military favor Mitt Romney over Barack Obama by a huge margin, 66% to 22%, according to an October poll conducted by the Military Times -- and the two issues most important to the voters were the economy and the character of the candidate. 66% of respondents said that either the economy or the character of the candidate was the deciding issue.
The group surveyed was comprised of 3,100 respondents who were roughly two-thirds active-duty and one-third reserve component members. Almost 29% have spent more than two cumulative years deployed since 9/11, and another group that size has spent one to two cumulative years deployed.
One 28-year-old Army captain said:
“When I talk to my soldiers, it’s not social issues. It’s almost not even military issues. What it comes down to is pocketbook issues. They currently see Mitt Romney as being stronger for their pocketbook. It comes down to taxes — how much are they going to have to pay — and are they going to be able to find jobs if they leave the military.”
Romney’s business acumen resonated with the veterans. Capt. John Bowe, a Marine military policeman, said he’s voting for Romney because Obama has failed with the economy. “You cannot add $6 trillion to the [national] debt in 3½ years and not expect massive repercussions,” he said...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

Conservatives push back against thin-skinned POTUS: #ThingsThatOffendObama


Twitchy ^ | 10/30/12


In a pre-taped interview with MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, the touchy-touchy commander-in-chief took “offense” at criticism of his administration’s ever-evolving statements on the Benghazi terror attack. Via Red Alert Politics:
President Barack Obama said this morning that he’s ‘offended’ by “suggestions” that the White House purposely kept Americans in the dark about the true nature of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and the events leading up to it.
The President made the comment as part of a pre-taped interview for hit MSNBC show “Morning Joe” with the show’s namesake former Congressman Joe Scarborough (R-Fla.) and co-host Mika Brzezinski.
The President declined to name names with regards to who he was specifically upset with. However, he presumably meant Republicans and the Republican presidential ticket based on his campaign’s continued efforts to portray the GOP as unnecessarily politicizing the issue and his reference to the second presidential debate, in which he and Romney got a memorably heated discussion about the attack.
“But I do take offense, as I’ve said during one of the debates, that there’s some suggestion, you know, that we, in any way haven’t tried to make sure that the American people knew as information was coming in what we believed happened.”
Conservatives on Twitter took offense at Obama’s offense at being called out for the teetering Jenga tower of lies and deceptions regarding the bloody Benghazi siege. The hashtag #ThingsThatOffendObama caught fire Monday night — causing more White House offense, no doubt.
Obama offended that #ThingsThatOffendObama is trending—
Jonathan Ellis (@JHartEllis) October 30, 2012
#ThingsThatOffendObama: Our Founding Fathers and that thing that they wrote that he always forgets about… uhh… uhh… the Constitution.—
#RepublicanGirlProbs (@RepubGrlProbs) October 30, 2012
#ThingsThatOffendObama Young people who dare to think for themselves and not drink the liberal kool aid.—
Bethany Bowra (@BethanyBowra) October 30, 2012
#ThingsThatOffendObama Big Boy Pants—
The Right Planet (@therightplanet) October 30, 2012
#ThingsThatOffendObama Replays of the first debate.—
Brandon Noel (@bnoel_60) October 30, 2012
#ThingsThatOffendObama
The American flag—
Irina Moises (@irinamoises) October 30, 2012
#ThingsThatOffendObama Busts of Winston Churchill—
?Herbert Brown, III? (@MusicmanHerb) October 30, 2012
#ThingsThatOffendObama women being "punished" with babies—
Fuzzy Slippers (@fuzislippers) October 30, 2012

Romney, Not Obama, Shows Concern For Nation's Poor!

Townhall.com ^ | October 29, 2012 | Byron York

CINCINNATI - There's an odd imbalance that few have noticed in this presidential campaign. In the midst of a continuing economic downturn, one candidate talks regularly about poverty, and the other doesn't. The one who does is the Republican, Mitt Romney.
He's done it for a long time. Go back to Romney's March 30 speech in Appleton, Wis., in which he introduced the charge that President Obama is creating a "government-centered society." "Over 46 million Americans are now living in poverty, more than ever before in our nation's history," Romney said. "In households with single moms, over 39 percent are living in poverty."
In speech after speech since then, Romney has included the nation's poverty rate in his case against Obama. "Today, more Americans wake up in poverty than ever before," he said in his address to the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla., on Aug. 30. "Look around you. These are not strangers. These are our brothers and sisters, our fellow Americans." Romney also brought up poverty at both presidential debates that covered domestic policy.
In contrast, President Obama rarely utters the word, and usually not in a campaign context. For example, he mentioned poverty at the dedication of the Cesar Chavez National Monument in Keene, Calif., on Oct. 8, but mostly to discuss the conditions Chavez addressed in the 1960s and '70s. Obama spoke the word again in his Sept. 25 address to the United Nations -- also not a campaign speech -- but only in the context of discussing religious tolerance around the world.
In his speech to the Democratic convention in Charlotte, N.C., Obama said "poverty" twice, once when discussing a hypothetical "little girl who's offered an escape from poverty by a great teacher or a grant for college," and later when declaring, "We know that churches and charities can often make more of a difference than a poverty program alone." Neither reference suggested there is a particularly acute poverty problem right now.
In short, even though the fight against poverty has long been associated with Democrats, and even though he is in a tight re-election race, and even though poverty is a particularly compelling problem at the moment, Barack Obama ignores the issue when it comes time to campaign. A sky-high poverty rate doesn't fit his theme that things are getting better. So he doesn't talk about it.
But the problem is still there. According to the Census Bureau, the poverty rate has gone from 12.5 percent in 2007 to 13.2 percent in 2008 to 14.3 percent in 2009 to 15.1 percent in 2010 to 15.0 percent in 2011. The last time it was higher than 15.1 percent was in 1965, when the nation's anti-poverty programs were just taking effect.
According to aides, Romney has thought about, and been concerned about, poverty his entire life. They point to a biographical video the Romney campaign produced for the Republican convention and now plays before campaign events around the country. The video features old film of George Romney, Mitt's father, saying, "I've been poor. I've worked from the time I was 12. I know what poverty is, I've been up through it."
Indeed, on the stump, Mitt Romney often talks about his father's modest beginnings. "There were times in my dad's life when he lived in poverty," Romney said in a speech to a Hispanic group in June. "My dad didn't finish college ... He held odd jobs -- lath and plaster and selling paint. He was lucky enough to live in America, where hard work can turn aspirations into realities." The elder Romney went on to become CEO of American Motors and, later, governor of Michigan.
Of course, Mitt Romney never lived in poverty and is today fabulously wealthy. But he heard his father every day growing up, and it's probably fair to say that he hears him still today. And so Romney thinks about poverty and what to do about it. He believes his proposals to spur economic growth will lift large numbers of Americans out of poverty. And he's willing to talk about it.
The irony is that, after the leak of the "47 percent" video on Sept. 17, Romney has fought the charge that he doesn't care about the poor. But the fact is, if you listen to both Romney and Obama on the stump, you will hear concern about the nation's poor from one candidate and virtually nothing from the other.

Soledad O'Brien inserts politics into Sandy reporting - asks about Romney FEMA comments!

CNN | October 30 | nwrep

DemSlut and 0 supporter Soledad O'Brien to the Delaware governor during Sandy reporting:
"So you think the state of Delaware can provide all that assistance without FEMA? Because you know, that is what Mitt Romney said - that FEMA should be returned to the states. Do you think you can get by without FEMA?"

Delaware Gov., with that leading question, obliged- "No, that is ridiculous, FEMA has a lot of resources, blah blah blah..."

Soledad still reprensting the 0 campaign, shamelessly politicizing the Sandy storm coverage and needs to be shamed for it on the air.

Obama Poised to Inflict Draconian, Bizarre EPA 'Green' Regs if We're Dumb Enough to Re-Elect Him

Reaganite Republican ^ | October 30, 2012 | Reaganite Republican



If we've learned anything about the current POTUS, it's that he's incredibly stubborn, displays an unsettling tendency towards zealotry and is unable/unwilling to learn from past mistakes. Since -like most libs- he's so self-assured of the Left's intellectual superiority, failures couldn't possibly be his fault- Barry's just doing what his wisers -i.e. Uncle Frank and 'Marxist professors'- taught him. Who cares about historical precedent, a void of logic/proof, or consistently lackluster results when you already know you're right? It's so easy.

Undeterred by myriad 'green' debacles -from Solyndra to Chevy Volts- Obama and his out-there EPA will continue to press-ahead. Some select quotes re. his extreme, legislature-skirting environmental agenda:

Obama:

'Under my plan, electricity rates would... necessarily skyrocket'

' ...we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.'

'So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that (cap-n-trade) will bankrupt them.'




Energy Secretary Steven Chu:

'Somehow,' Chu said, 'we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.'

Anybody not expecting an even more radical lurch to the left in an Obama 2nd term (Heaven forbid) hasn't been paying enough attention, because his response to failure, voter disapproval, or being proven factually incorrect tends to be a single-finger salute and diversion of blame while doubling-down on standard far-Left policies: political calculation is the only thing that prevents this one from doing whatever-he-damn-well-pleases every day.

The news that Obama has a whole new slew of unwanted, unneeded and utterly misguided 'green' agenda regulations he's prevented his politicized, radicalized EPA from implementing just yet should come as a surprise to no-one: if he somehow manages to cling to power, they'll be inflicted on us pronto, as will the resultant jobs massacre... here's what's slated for just next year:

  • Greenhouse gas rules that will 'virtually eliminate coal as a fuel option for future electric power generation' and inflict new permitting costs on more than 37,000 farms.
  • New ozone standards that would cost $90 billion/yr

  • Regulations on hydraulic fracturing that will have 'serious impacts on domestic energy production.'

  • Expansion of federal control 'over virtually every body of water in the United States, no matter how small.'

  • Storm water regulations that could include 'mandates on cities to change existing buildings, storm water sewers, and streets.'

  • Reductions in the sulfur content in gasoline that could boost prices by 9 cents a gallon.

  • Clean Water Act rules that 'could require expensive new construction at power plants to lower fish deaths.' Other regulations would affect coal ash, farm dust, oil and gasoline spill prevention, and more.

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) last week presented a 14-page report on Obama's agenda re. a wide range of environmental-economic issues including new EPA regulation on power plant emissions and hydraulic fracturing. In it, he says that just pending regulations on greenhouse gases alone would cost American employers $300 - $400 BILLION annually, not to mention a significant price increase for gasoline and home heating...

Mittmentum: Newspapers Increasingly Dump Obama For Romney!

Investor's Business Daily ^ | 10/30/2012 | IBD Staff

President Obama spent roughly half an hour last Tuesday on the phone with the Des Moines Register's publisher and editor, desperately trying to win the influential Iowa newspaper's endorsement for a second term.
"You'll feel better when you give it," Obama told them, after touting what he said were four years of accomplishments, along with promises of strong economic growth should he get four more years.
Three days later, the Register endorsed Mitt Romney — the first Republican the paper has backed in 40 years. [snip]
The Register isn't the only newspaper to abandon Obama this year after eagerly endorsing four years ago.
In fact, of those major metro dailies that have announced their picks, more than one in five that had previously backed Obama are now pushing Romney...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...

Election Swings Towards Mitt Romney

Political Realities ^ | 10/30/12 | LD Jackson

I want to be up front about something. I am not predicting Mitt Romney will win the election one week from today and become the next President of the United States. I am, however, feeling hopeful in that direction. For months, we have been subjected to character assassination, aimed at Mitt Romney. If we were to listen to the advertising coming from the Obama campaign and his supporters, we would believe Romney as Satan himself. That's how bad they have made it sound. He has been accused of everything under the sun as they try to malign him into non relevancy. We were told the debates were coming up and Romney didn't stand a chance of defeating Barack Obama. Until he wiped the floor with the President in Denver. That's when things started to change and the momentum has moved in Romney's direction since that time.
There is good reason to be hopeful that Mitt Romney can defeat Barack Obama on November 6. Remember how the Obama campaign has touted their supremacy in early voting? Well, we need to hold those horses, because that isn't necessarily the case. According to a new Gallup poll, Mitt Romney has an overall lead in those early votes. The pollsters don't like to admit it and buried that fact at the end of their story, but it is true, nonetheless. It is also worth noting what a senior aide to Mitt Romney said on America's Morning News this morning. He said Republicans were not going to be caught off guard by early voting in this election cycle.
(Breibart) Romney currently leads Obama 52% to 45% among voters who say they have already cast their ballots. However, that is comparable to Romney's 51% to 46% lead among all likely voters in Gallup's Oct. 22-28 tracking polling. At the same time, the race is tied at 49% among those who have not yet voted but still intend to vote early, suggesting these voters could cause the race to tighten. However, Romney leads 51% to 45% among the much larger group of voters who plan to vote on Election Day, Nov. 6. When Gallup says early voters don’t seem to be swaying the election, presumably what they means is that because Romney is ahead by five points nationally, an early voting advantage of seven-points isn't going to "sway the election."
Romney's early voting lead in Gallup may not jive with the CorruptMedia narrative, but it does with actual early vote totals that have been released and show Romney's early vote totals either beating Obama in swing states such as Colorado and Florida or chipping away at the President's advantage in the others. For example, here's what we know about Ohio's early voting numbers, thus far:
But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008. Something else in this Gallup survey also helps shed some light on what we're seeing in these sometimes counter-intuitive state polls. As the headline states, Gallup is showing that only 15% of the public has already voted. Moreover, they've broken down early voting by region and show that in the Midwest only 13% of voters have already voted. And yet, many polls in places like Ohio show a much higher percentage of early voters, some as high as 30%, which you can bet skews the data. In other words, those polls can't be correct.
Other than the fact that this is Gallup, another reason to embrace this poll is due to its very large sample size of 3,312 registered voters.
If this enough good news for you, let's take a look at what really matters. The national popular vote elects the electors to the Electoral College. Those electors are the people who actually vote for the President. In other words, the states elect the President, as it was designed by the men who founded our great nation. One of the worries about Mitt Romney's chances of winning the presidency has to do with the Electoral College. Many people have said he has no path to winning 269 votes in the Electoral College, which is the number he has to win, in order to become our next President. According to the latest state polls, that is no longer the case.
(Breibart) According to the latest Rasmussen state polls, Mitt Romney is in position to win the presidency; he should win at least 279 electoral votes. Romney leads in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and New Hampshire; Obama leads in Nevada. Wisconsin and Iowa are tied. Were Romney to win both Wisconsin and Iowa, he’d secure another 16 electoral votes, putting him at 295 electoral votes. By way of contrast, George W. Bush won 286 electoral votes in 2004. This is the first time that Rasmussen polls have shown Romney winning enough electoral votes to win the presidency. Rasmussen hasn't moved any of the states above out of toss-up territory, but trends are in Romney’s direction, with just over a week until election day.
Because I am so fearful of a second Obama term, I do not want to get my hopes up that Mitt Romney may actually pull off a victory next week. Who knows what will happen during the final week of the campaign? Who knows how Hurricane Sandy and its aftermath will affect the voting on the East Coast and in other states affected by the storm? Anything can happen, especially when we are dealing with someone like Barack Obama. I will allow myself a bit of cautious optimism about the election. I believe Mitt Romney has a better than average chance of winning the number of electoral votes needed to move him into the White House. I am praying that is the case and if it wasn't so hard to type with crossed fingers, they would be crossed. Hang on for the ride. We have one more week and things are looking up for Mitt Romney.

Jeep, an Obama favorite, looks to shift production to China!

the examiner ^ | 10/25/2012 | Paul Bedard

In another potential blow for the president's Ohio reelection campaign, Jeep, the rugged brand President Obama once said symbolized American freedom, is considering giving up on the United States and shifting production to China.

Such a move would crash the economy in towns like Toledo, Ohio, where Jeeps are made and supplied, and rob the community of the economic security they thought Obama's auto bailout assured them.
Obama is such a fan of Jeep that he included a picture of himself speaking at the Toledo plant in his newly released second term agenda binder. In his address to the plant in 2011, Obama said, "I just took a short tour of the plant and watched some of you putting the finishing touches on the Wrangler. Now, as somebody reminded, I need to call it the 'iconic' Wrangler. And that's appropriate because when you think about what Wrangler has always symbolized. It symbolized freedom, adventure, hitting the open road, never looking back."
Well it appears that the taxpayer bailed-out Chrysler is looking back and now considering cutting costs by shifting production of all Jeeps to China, which has a strong desire for Jeeps.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...

Obama is War on Women Casualty!

Townhall.com ^ | October 30, 2012 | John Ransom

Soon will come the finger-pointing.

Liberals will gnash their teeth, pull their hair and recriminate.

Yes; true, this is normal behavior on the part of liberals. But this time the behavior will be uproarious and hilarious.
Because this time, the folks who brought us Occupy Wall Street won’t be in a drum circle, but in a circular firing squad facing their comrades, their righteous fingers loaded and looking for blame.
“Oh, Chicago!” they’ll say. “Bang, bang.”
Sure, there will be the typical liberal shots at the “racists” on the right who denied Obama a second term.
But the delicious irony lost on them will be found in their final chant of “It’s all Bush’s fault.” But that irony won’t be lost on history.
Count me amongst those laughing hardest.
Because Obama’s term can best be described as a Harold Ramis movie.
Remember when Obama had to redefine his stimulus program that was supposed to create millions of jobs, to only “saving” millions of government jobs?
“We spent a trillion dollars on what?” Ha, ha.Check out more Ransom:

Gospel According to Democrats: Woman, Behold Thy Government Program!

As Jimmy Kimmel explained at the 2012 White House Correspondents Dinner:
“Mr. President, remember when the country rallied around you in the hopes of a better tomorrow? That was hilarious. That was your best one yet.”
Well not quite.
There was that time that Obama got roughly $90 billion for green energy jobs, or green energy “investments,” as he calls them, which were touted to save us billions of dollars in imported oil and create 5 million green energy jobs.
“The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 set aside $90 billion in renewable energy grants and loans for a grab bag of thousands of projects—wind farms, solar installations, natural gas fueling stations, biofuel research, and a $5 billion weatherization project for low-income homes,” reports BusinessWeek.com. “Digging into the public records of the $21 billion spent so far through 19 U.S. Department of Energy programs reveals 3,960 projects that employ 28,854 people.”
Only 4,971,146 jobs left to go!
Four more years? No, at that rate it would take 693 years for Obama to create 5 million green energy jobs at the rate he created them over the first four years. And at the current cost, Obama would have to spend $3.6 trillion just to create those jobs.
That’s 25 percent of our GDP dedicated to creating about 3.5 percent of our jobs, if it ever happened.
You can not find a better punch line that knocks the water out of Obamanomics so completely. Forget about Obama’s 1 percent. At $727,000 per job, the 3.5 percent who would have green jobs would have it pretty good.
Thankfully economics, and by that I mean real-life market forces, not wishful theories by central bank and Ivy League economists, have prevented Obamanomics from working.
So as a healthy alternative to providing actual money to families during the recession, Obama created the bumper sticker war that liberals call: The Republican War on Women (R-WoW).
R-WoW’s not doing so hot though. It’s based on the faulty assumption that Republican men want to control women’s brains and their uteruses. And it's way too transparent an attempt to distract from Obama's record of failure.
I’ll admit that as a man I don’t always understand women. They are girly and often smell powdery. That and the insides of their purses intimidate me. But I know that they have a healthy respect for money. This I understand.
If you gave them a choice between a job that pays money and free birth control, the ones I know would pick a job.
They aren’t buying into the R-WoW credo that the GOP is somehow hostile to women. And it’s not just the girls I know. According to the latest AP survey the vaunted gender gap that Obama counted on to get re-elected has disappeared. The seven-point advantage that Obama had with women in 2008 has vaporized in 2012.
“Less than two weeks out from Election Day,” reports CBSNews “Republican Mitt Romney has erased President Obama's 16-point advantage among women, a new Associated Press-GfK poll shows.”
Just a month ago, says CBS, “women favored Mr. Obama over Romney on the economy 56 percent to 40 percent. Now, the split has shifted to 49 percent for Romney and 45 percent for Mr. Obama.”
And the irony here is that the harder the administration tried to push R-WoW, the more they alienated women. It was just about a month ago that Obama’s disastrous debate performance forced liberals to cue up the War on Women once more as an alternative to…policy, results, progress, or a real president?
And yes, I find the irony of this hilarious.
Obama has been done in by his own campaign device, done in by women who wouldn't buy his R-WoW BS. Ha! It could all make a wonderful Will Farrell comedy. Women, however, it seems, are not amused.