Why Romney Will Win Big

Although the so-called mainstream media (MSM) is hoping and praying (maybe not) and doing everything they can to campaign for Obama, it will all go for naught.  The core problem is the general disdain that liberal elites have for the average man.  They think everyone but them is incapable of making the right decisions in life.  They honestly believe that they must take care of the "little people."  They are not the champions of the poor and the downtrodden, they are their worst enemy.  They discourage those who are struggling, they call them victims, and they manipulate them for their own political gain. 

The problem for the left is that the average man and woman is a whole lot smarter than those on the left think they are.  In fact, most of them have more common sense; i.e., wisdom, than those on the left have.  The average man or woman is, in fact, the bedrock of America.  Your everyday American works hard, they take care of their families, they take compassion on others, they volunteer and donate, they attend church, and they love the United States of America.  They correctly view America as a God blessed land, offering hope and opportunity that is not available anywhere else on the face of the earth.  Americans are tolerant, kind, and forgiving, but they have a strong sense of right and wrong that guides them in making hard decisions in life and in politics.  You can fool them once because they expect the best in people, but you can't fool them twice, and that's what the Obama campaign is all about, trying to fool Americans into believing the worst about their neighbors, and about their nation.  That dog won't hunt.

Americans are not a bunch of buffoons as President Obama and his cronies on the left believe.  They will give you the shirt off their back if you need help, but they will take a con artist to the woodshed, especially if he tries to con them a second time.  The 2012 election is the liberal's trip to the woodshed.  They have miscalculated the American people because they really don't believe in the intelligence and wisdom of the average American. 

The left chose a stealth candidate in Barack Obama in 2008.  A neophyte without a resume as a public figure, and the compliant MSM hid the real Barack Obama from the American people.  They refused to report his close ties to SDS radicals Bill Ayres and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn.  They hid the mentorship of Communist Party USA member, Frank Marshall Davis, from public view.  They dismissed the nearly family ties of Barack Obama and Michelle Obama to radical preacher, Jeremiah Wright. 

But it was more than that.  The good nature of the American people caused them to want to elect a black man to the White House as a sign of their good will and concern for the plight of black Americans caught in the web of the liberal establishment that keeps them in perpetual poverty.  Such is the nature of the average American.  While black Americans were thrilled to have someone of their own race in the White House, it was white Americans who gave Obama the needed votes to win.  It was their sign of wishing all black Americans well.  Even those who voted against Barack Obama wanted him to succeed in creating a post racial society, and to build upon the foundation of freedom created by our Founders.  Only those who successfully navigated the fog created by the MSM feared what Barack Obama would do as President.  Sadly, those who looked deeper found a man rigidly bound to an ideology that is the antithesis of that of the Founders.  And today, the failure of that far left ideology is on display for all Americans—higher energy costs, fewer jobs, government takeover of health care, bigger and more intrusive government, voter fraud, soaring debt, and an anti-business attitude. 

But the American people have rallied from their sleep.  They are going to reject a young, inexperienced, and ideologically driven President who is in way over his head.  They don't take kindly to politicians of any stripe who endeavor to manipulate and con them, especially those who do not share their love for America.  This is the situation as I see it…

2010 Was Not an Accident

• Tea Party is Stronger than Ever.  The Tea Party movement isn't holding massive rallies anymore, instead they have put their efforts into navigating the political process, and mastering the tools of voter turnout, fund raising, communications, etc.  Today's Tea Party movement is stronger, better organized, and more focused and politically effective than ever.  While the much vaunted Occupy Movement never was much more than a rag tag bunch of far left hooligans, the Tea Party movement is built on solid goals and objectives.  Moreover, the folks who lead the various Tea Party groups are smart and canny.  A survey of Tea Party participants shows that these folks are better educated, better informed, and more motivated than the establishment of either political party.  They believe in the United States Constitution and the guiding principles of our Founders.  The Tea Party was responsible for launching the political careers of talented individuals like Allen West and nearly 80 other members of Congress.  This movement is still in its early stages and will be a potent force in this year's election and for years to come.  Just as the Tea Party led the GOP to victory in 2010, they will be leading the way in 2012.
• Nothing has Changed.  Almost nothing has changed from 2010, politically speaking, except that the intensity of conservatives is, if anything, even stronger than ever.  While it is true that the turnout in 2012 will be larger than it was in 2010, the Obama base is not energized according to any surveys.  African Americans are morally incensed by Obama's endorsement of gay marriage that was made for fund raising purposes.  In addition, they are dissatisfied (as they should be) with the exceptionally high unemployment rate in the black community.  Yes, the MSM is fully in the tank for Obama and the Democrats, but the only thing different than the past is the complete partisan approach that reporters and writers in the MSM are taking.  Counterbalancing that is the fact that more people watched the Fox News Channel when the Presidential Debates were on than they did  CBS, NBC or ABC.  It is, thus, much harder for the MSM to hide the truth about what is going on in the campaign from the American people.  The $400 million Obama campaign ad effort to portray Romney as a heartless, cruel, mean spirited person went up in smoke after the first debate.  There is no reason to believe that the outcome of the 2012 election will be significantly different than the outcome of the 2010 election.  Part of the reason for that is explained by the fact that…
• The Democrats are Still in Denial.  That's right, the Democrats are still in denial about the significance of the Tea Party movement.  They have not accepted the fact that 2010 was a sea change election that changed the political landscape, if not forever, certainly for the foreseeable future.  The Tea Party not only impacted the Republican Party, but also the entire political landscape.  It brought about the sweeping electoral victory in 2010 that ran from the halls of Congress to state houses, court houses, and to city halls.  It was, in many ways, quite similar to the sweeping victory of the Democrats in 1928.  There was no presidential election that year, but the Democrats won Congress, state legislatures, governorships, county council races and city council.  Even after that sweeping election, the Republicans were still in denial.  They said, as the Democrats say today, that it was just a "change" election and believed that it would all come back their way in 1930 and 1932, but just the opposite happened.  It won't happen for the Democrats in 2012 either.  This will be another big victory for the Republican Party, and especially for Tea Party activists.
• Stay-at-Home Republicans.  In 2008 more than 10 million Christians and/or conservatives sat out the election.  This was due to either non-interest in the Republican nominee, John McCain, or outright dislike of the nominee.  Today, these folks are energized and ready to roll.  They are no longer sitting on the fence, dissatisfied, or uninterested.  They will turn out in this critical election year and provide the margin needed for a big victory that may reach landslide proportions.

Delusional Poll Selection

Almost all the polling numbers for the 2012 presidential election are based on the Democrat and Republican turnouts (percentage wise) in 2008.  There are many problems with that approach.  The primary problem is that it ignores the 2010 sea change election that changed the political landscape.  The substance of this change is that while in 2008 the majority of the American people identified themselves as Democrats (9% advantage for Democrats), in 2012 the majority of voters identify themselves as Republicans (1% advantage for Republicans).  This is a huge turnaround, even though the advantage for the GOP is minimal. 

In spite of these changes, most pollsters are using the 2008 model and totally ignoring the 2010 model.  The notable exceptions are Rasmussen and Gallup, both of which are showing a victory for Romney.  Moreover, the internal polling of the candidates also shows this situation.  The over-polling of Democrats by 10% means just one thing.  It means the polling firm is assuming the intensity of the Democratic voters (or the Democratic ground game for getting out the vote) will result in a higher percentage of identified Democrats voting than identified Republicans voting.  There two major problems with this assumption.  First, all surveys indicate that the Republican base is more energized than the Democrat base.  Second, by all accounts, the Republican ground game is as good as or better than the Democratic get-out-the-vote ground game in 2012.  The GOP was behind in this area in 2008, but they have caught up and possibly passed the Democrats.

But does this still mean a big, sea change victory?  Oversampling by 10 points is misleading.  For instance, if a sample of 1,000 prospective voters includes 300 independents, 400 Democrats and 300 Republicans it is in statistical error by 33%.  It has under-sampled Republicans by at least 33% (100 divided by 300 = 33%).  The impact of this over-sampling is enormous.  Some of the current polls show Obama in the lead 49% to 47% for Romney.  If you correct the oversampling to 50/50, the result is 56.6% for Romney and 43.4% for Obama!  I am not saying that the election will be a landslide for Romney, but it does have that potential.

Finally, no candidate for president who was behind the challenger at this point in the campaign has ever lost the race for president.  Both the Rasmussen polls and the Gallup polls have Romney ahead.  Rasmussen gives Romney an edge 49% to 47% with 2% undecided.  Gallup gives Romney the lead by 4%.  While both of these polls are subject to a ±3% error factor, they do not take into account the fact that for the last 40 years…

Undecided Votes Go to the Challenger

That's right, historically all undecided votes go to the challenger (except for Ronald Reagan who was, in fact, an exceptional candidate and an exceptional president).  In fact, the Friday prior to the 1980 election, when Reagan was running against Carter, the Gallup poll showed Carter winning by 3%.  It did not look promising.  It was another case of oversampling Democrats.

The results, of course, looked quite different.  Reagan won by 8,423,115 votes with a 10% victory over Carter, even though turncoat Republican John Anderson was in the race and won 5,719,850 votes, denying Reagan 6.6% of the vote total.  It was a stunning election victory that befuddled the left and their allies in the MSM.  Reagan not only won the White House, but thanks to his coattails, the Republicans also took control of the US Senate and added seats in the House of Representatives. 

Benghazi Attack Scandal

Do not underestimate the impact of the Benghazi Scandal that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including our ambassador.  The confusing and contradictory and ever changing stories that keep coming out belie a scandal of likely great proportions.  While President Obama professes that he finds "offensive" any suggestion that politics controlled his actions in this matter, that assertion is questionable, at best.

While it is unlikely that we will hear the truth before election day, and it is likely that the shredders in the White House are working overtime, the truth will eventually come out.  Why, because more than 300 people were recipients of the emails and messages sent out by the White House and those on the ground in Benghazi.  A conspiracy designed to block the truth when 300 individuals received emails is impossible to contain or manage.

Members of the CIA fast response team have reported that three times they asked for permission to go to the consulate and rescue the ambassador and others there, and three times they were denied permission.  These are hard, unimpeachable sources that tell an ignoble, sad story.  Was it concern that a terrorist attack would disrupt the PR narrative of the recent Democratic Convention, that the terrorist threat had subsided, that deterred the President from giving the go-ahead needed to save these men?  Was it gross ineptitude?  In either case, it is dereliction of duty by the Commander in Chief.

There is a distinct possibility that before election day honorable men will come forward, putting risk to their careers, and tell the truth.  If that should happen, even the MSM will not be able to keep a lid on this scandal.

2008 Was High Water Mark of American Liberalism

As I have noted before, the 2008 election victory of Barack Obama was likely the high water mark of the left in America, just as Pickett's charge was the high water mark of the Confederacy.  The Barack Obama of 2008 was a mythical character, concocted by the campaign and supported by the MSM.  His lack of experience, his association with domestic terrorists (Ayres and Dohrn) and assorted radicals of the far left (Jeremiah Wright and Frank Marshall Davis), and his votes as an Illinois State Senator for killing babies who were born alive due to a botched abortion, were ignored by the MSM.  In 2008, the Obama Chicago machine with the full compliance of the MSM created a false narrative of Barack Obama, but that false narrative has been punctured by books, articles, and extensive reports.  That exposé, combined with the utter failure of the Obama policies and his running rough shod over the US Constitution, has created a mountain of opposition to his re-election.

For all of the reasons provide above, I am confident that Mitt Romney will win a substantial election victory, somewhere in the 53% to 56% range. 

What Would an Obama Second Term Would Mean?

 "What's past is prologue" is a line from the William Shakespeare play, The Tempest.  The Bard of Avon was right, of course.  If someone has a spotty record of paying their bills in the past, they are probably not someone you want to loan money to.  Similarly, if you are looking for a husband, your best bet is to avoid those gentlemen who have already had several wives.  The bottom line is that past performance (or lack thereof) is a good indicator of what you can expect in the future. 

Those who expect President Obama to do things differently in a second term fit Albert Einstein's definition of insanity, "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."  In other words, if you liked what Obama did in his first term, you'll love what he will do in the second term.  But if you don't like the economy, if you don't like the fact that the price of a gallon of gas has more than doubled since Obama took office, and if you don't like apologizing to dictators and potentates, you'll hate an Obama second term.

President Obama made many promises during the past four years…

"…if we don't pass the stimulus bill, unemployment will rise above 8%."—It topped 10% shortly thereafter and for 40 months stayed above 8%.

Obamacare will "bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family."—The reality is that premiums have gone up, on average, by $2,500 per family.

"If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."—Sadly, this is not true.  Many companies are dropping insurance coverage because they can't afford to provide it.

Americans hoped that an Obama election would mean a post racial presidency—Regrettably, America has never been more divided and President Obama has been the chief instigator, exacerbating this division for political advantage.

President Obama promised "…the most open and transparent ever."—In reality, it has been one of the most secretive and closed presidential administrations in history.

There was an absence of a promise when millions of Iranians risked their lives by demonstrating for freedom in the streets of Tehran in May of 2011.  Not a word of encouragement was forthcoming from the mouth of the President who apparently feared offending Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs who run Iran.

"I support Israel."—Instead, President Obama has repeatedly snubbed Israel and its leaders, refusing to meet with them and in doing so, encouraging Israel's enemies. 

"I have an all-of-the-above energy strategy."—The truth is that President Obama is shutting down coal plants, killing jobs and jeopardizing the electrical grid of the US.  He has reduced oil and gas drilling permits on government land by 37.4%.  The only reason oil and gas production is up is that vast reserves have been tapped on private lands where Obama was unable to block it.

But, in all fairness, President Obama has received some very impressive endorsements for a second term…

Castro.  On his apparent deathbed, Fidel Castro, the bloody Cuban dictator endorsed him.

Chavez.  Hugo Chavez, the Socialist strongman in Venezuela endorsed the President.  On a previous visit to Venezuela, Obama embraced Chavez and called him "Mi Amigo."

Putin.  Russian President and dictator, Vladimir Putin, backs the President.  He wants some of that "flexibility after the election" that Obama promised Russian henchman Dmitri Medvedev in a comment that was accidentally picked up by an open microphone.

Webb.  Sam Webb, Chairman of the Communist Party USA, threw his support behind President Obama, saying of the President, "We are speaking to a friend."

In years past, such endorsements would have sunk any candidate for President, but so far there has been no disavowal by the Obama campaign.  Nor has there been any attention or concern expressed by the news media.

But what, specifically, would a second term for President Barack Obama mean to you and to me?  Here is a brief list of what the President would like to do in a second term according to White House insiders and that is in sync with his past record…

1. Double Down on Green Energy.  In spite of the many "Solyndra" type scandals, and failures, the President plans to double down on this unproven technology.  This will not only mean more waste of tax dollars, but also higher energy prices.
2. Block Gas & Oil Exploration and Production.  In spite of the opportunity to create jobs and make the US energy independent, the President intends to choke off all coal production, restrict its exportation, and put obstacles in the way of oil and gas production via fracking.
3. Force Conservative Talk Radio Off the Air.  The Obama team at the FCC has already proposed changes that include Paragraph 25 titled Community Advisory Boards.  These Advisory Boards would consist of local community organizers and be diverse, i.e. left wing.  If the radio station does not go along with the recommendations of the Community Advisory Board it could face fines and a loss of its license.  The architect of this new rule is Mark Lloyd who has written, "…the gap between conservative and progressive [i.e. liberal] talk radio is the result of…the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management."  Now that Obama has a majority on the Federal Communications Commission, he can and will force conservative talk radio off the air in his second term.  No more Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, etc.
4. Domestic Drones.  Obama recently authorized the widespread use of drones by local, state and national government entities ostensibly for the purpose of tracking drug dealers and other criminals.  More than 30,000 are expected to be flying by the end of the decade.  Such drones pose a great threat to civil liberties if abused by the government.
5. Electrical Shortages.  With the shutdown of coal fired power plants which provide some 40% of all electric generation, prices will not only skyrocket, but brownouts and blackouts are likely.  A decline in energy use is a reliable measurement of a decline in a civilized society.
6. Gasoline, Diesel, and Heating Fuel Shortages.  Such shortages will drive gasoline prices to European levels of $8.00 to $10.00 per gallon.  This is Obama's goal.  Diesel shortages will drive up the price at the pump and the cost of nearly every consumer item, including groceries.  Fuel shortages will hit the young and our elderly the hardest, lowering the standard of living of all Americans.
7. Decline in the Quality of Health Care.  Individuals who have chronic diseases and are past the age of 60 will be hit hard by the Obamacare "death panels."  As my wife, who suffers from MS, found out, it is already harder to get an MRI under Obamacare.  The vast bureaucracy of Obamacare will choke off quality health care, stifle research and development, and limit health care for individuals judged by the various Obamacare panels as being past their ability to contribute to society.  Doctors are already retiring early, enrollment in medical schools is sure to decline sharply, along with a decline in nursing school enrollment.  While Americans have been able to see a doctor in a matter of days, that waiting time is sure to extend into weeks and months, as a result of Obamacare.  It is only a matter of time until bureaucrats, not your doctor decide what procedures you can have, and which ones are not necessary.
8. Reduction in Medicare Coverage.  By extracting $716 billion from Medicare and transferring it to Obamacare, doctors and medical practitioners will be paid even less than they are today, ultimately resulting in their refusal to provide medical services to the elderly. 
9. Social Security.  Due to the massive debt rolled up in the first four years of the Obama Administration and the refusal of Congress to address the Social Security crisis, recipients are sure to suffer.  Funds available to Social Security recipients are due to run out shortly.  In lieu of necessary marketplace reforms, Social Security benefits will decline sharply.
10. Inflation.  Deficit spending always results in inflation.  It may be delayed by advances in productivity or new technology, but it ultimately hits.  Today the United States is more than $20 trillion in debt and rising at the rate of more than $1 trillion per year.  When inflation comes (as it did under Jimmy Carter) it will result in devaluation of the dollar and make the economic situation of those on fixed incomes much worse.
11. Further Credit Downgrading of the United States.  Obamanomics caused the first downgrading of US debt in the history of the United States by Standard and Poors credit rating organization.  The US lost its AAA rating and was downgraded to a AA+ rating.  Such a rating decline is significant because it means that when the US borrows more money from China (or other countries) we must pay a higher rate.  As of June 30, 2012 the national debt exceeded the total annual US gross domestic product.  In other words, thanks to $5 trillion in additional debt, our national debt is for the first time in history greater than the value of all goods and services created annually in our nation!  With deficit spending planned to continue at more than $1 trillion per year, our credit rating is almost sure to be downgraded again.
12. Military Inferiority.  President Obama has promised Russia that he will be "more flexible" in his second term and he has a publically stated goal of ridding the world of all nuclear weapons.  Like Jimmy Carter, he sees the US as the problem and will unilaterally disarm the US, making us a second rate world power.  Today, thanks to President Obama, we have fewer ships than since before World War I and further cuts are planned.  This weakens our nation and could make us vulnerable to nuclear blackmail.
13. Appeasement and Apology.  A second Obama term will lead to more apology and appeasement, setting the stage for more wars and conflicts taking the lives of more Americans.  Appeasement always leads to conflict.
14. Voting Franchise Corruption.  The current US Department of Justice is run by far left radicals who have absolutely no respect for the law.  If re-elected, Obama's appointees at DOJ will run rampant in corrupting the election process, blocking voter ID laws and enabling voter theft on a scale similar to that of a banana republic.
15. Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.  High on Obama's agenda in a second term will be granting amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, thus ensuring a permanent Democratic majority for decades to come. 
16. Ideologically Driven US Supreme Court.  In his second term, Obama will be able to appoint two to three new Justices to the US Supreme Court.  These justices will be similar to his past appointees, ideologically driven, having a high disregard for the Constitution, and following a far left agenda.  Individual freedom will suffer greatly.  Past rulings such as the Citizens United case will be reversed and social engineering by the High Court will become common and much more intrusive.  Churches and religious groups as well as gun owners will be under attack.

On October 29, 1929, the stock market crashed; due, most economists say, to the enactment of the Smoot-Hawley tariff law.  It was also brought about by expansive spending by big government Republican, President Herbert Hoover.  But by December of 1931, economic signs were improving, the stock market was rising, production was up, but government spending by the Roosevelt Administration was accelerating at an unprecedented pace.  Instead of a recovery that was on the horizon, the US was plunged into the Great Depression.  And because of the big government policies followed by the Roosevelt Administration, the US wallowed in the Depression for nearly eight years longer than the rest of the world.

The handwriting is on the wall.  The United States of America simply cannot sustain the irrational and unlimited spending of the Obama Administration.  When an individual or a government spends money it doesn't have, the result is inevitable economic catastrophe.  Socialism is a financially unsustainable model.  It always comes crashing down and it never recovers.  Government intervention into the marketplace (such as underwriting loans to people who cannot afford them in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) leads to economic misery, recessions and depressions.  Only the free market can restore prosperity.

If Obama is given another four years, the almost certain outcome will be another Great Depression that will far overshadow the current economic misery.  Such a Depression would give the President nearly unlimited power over the lives of American citizens.  It will mean the end of freedom and prosperity as bequeathed to us by the Founders.  Government intervention into the lives of its citizens will expand dramatically, regulating everything we do.  We will indeed become just another nation, no longer a beacon of freedom and hope to the world. 

The good news is that the American people are waking up to the threat to individual liberty and freedom posed by President Barack Obama and his radical Administration.  We are on the cusp of winning an historic election that will run from the White House to the state house to the court house to city hall.

The depth, scope, and importance of that election victory will be discussed in my next blog.

Caught With Their Pants Down

The problem with talking behind someone's back is that the story usually gets back to the one you are talking about.  And if you slander someone, they find out about it.  The result is that you look pretty bad and the person you lied about looks quite good.  That about sums up what happened in the recent Presidential debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

The fact is that most people don't pay much attention to politics until after Labor Day and most of them don't pay much attention to the race for President until the first Presidential debate.  So, for many of the 65 million or so that watched the debate between the incumbent President and the former Governor of Massachusetts, this was their first exposure to the candidates, other than the barrage of commercials that were aired on TV.  And, if you were lucky (or unfortunate, as you may think it) enough to live in a "battleground" state such as Virginia, North Carolina, Florida or Ohio, you received a double blast from the Romney and Obama political shotguns.  For months you have been treated to personal attacks on Mitt Romney as a low down, merciless, greedy, evil businessman who doesn't give a whit for the concerns of the poor or the middle income folks.  From the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on pro-Obama, anti-Romney ads you would think that Romney beats his wife, eats caviar for dinner every night, kicks the dog, and spends his time figuring out how he can benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else.

When you spend several hundred million dollars developing a false narrative of your opponent, the only thing you can hope for is that the truth doesn't come out.  It is said the campaign book at the Obama headquarters has one theme, "kill Romney."  Now, the Obama folks don't mean that literally, but they do mean it politically.  Frankly, I'm not offended at the theme, except if it means slandering Romney.  In this case, painting a picture of Romney as a heartless monster was exactly the theme.  The success of the entire campaign rested upon creating this false caricature of Mitt Romney.  If they could do that, they felt they could win the election.

But when the first Presidential Debate took place, Romney failed to cooperate.  People saw that he was not the awful person that had been portrayed in the multitude of personal attack ads run against him on TV.  Neither was he a bumbling idiot.  The President tried to continue the false attacks on him, claiming that he would raise taxes on the middle income folks, but the problem was it just wasn't true.  Yes, one ITT (In the Tank) Think Tank came up with a cockamamie analysis that indicated that the Romney plan would raise taxes on the middle income folks by $5 trillion, but several other much more reputable think tanks, including the American Enterprise Institute, found the plan to be either revenue neutral or actually a reduction.  The Wall Street Journal also concluded that the Romney plan would not raise taxes on anyone.  Nonetheless, the President proceded to repeat this canard over and over again.

Surely someone on the Obama political team knew about the preponderance of analyses that concluded the Romney plan would not raise taxes on the middle income folks, yet they advised the President to proceed with this patently false attack.  What gives?  Did they expect the moderator, a kindly liberal fellow, Jim Lehrer, to come to Obama's aid?  And speaking of Jim Lehrer, the Obama ITT media and other liberal mouthpieces are outraged by the moderator's even handed handling of the debate.  Even though the President spoke for five minutes more than Romney, they think Obama got a raw deal.  What he really got was a political knock out from someone more talented, more accomplished, more knowledgeable, and more prepared than the President.  Barack Obama lost fair and square.  I have heard it said that a compulsive liar is speechless when confronted with the truth.  Maybe that was what happened at the Presidential Debate.

So, the President and his politicos simply acknowledged that he lost, conceded victory and moved on, right?  No, they didn't.  The problem was that they had bet everything on convincing the voters, especially the swing voters, that Romney was someone he wasn't.  So, instead of moving on, they have decided to double down and label Romney a liar.

I guess we shouldn't be too surprised since that comes right from the book that Obama taught from, Rules for Radicals, by Saul Alinsky—accuse your opponent of what you are guilty of.  Staying on the attack is one of the tenets of Alinsky.  Never let your opponent go on the offensive.

Speaking of lying, it's hard to know where to start with Obama.  Here is the very short list of some of the whoppers that Obama has told…

1. I never heard my pastor say anything like that, i.e. "G__ D__ America" or in regard to 9-11, "The chickens came home to roost."  He said that with a straight face after sitting in his church for more than 20 years, donating more than $20,000 and dedicating his (as it turns out) third book to him and calling him a confidant.
2. I hardly knew Bill Ayres.  Ayres is the unrepentant domestic terrorist that bombed the Capitol Building and tried to bomb the Pentagon.  Obama knew him and his radical wife, Bernadine Dohrn, quite well.  He launched his state senate race in the home of Bill and Bernadine, he served on a board with Bill, he talked with him frequently, yet claimed to not know him well.
3. I do not support one payer health care like Canada.  He can be seen on video tape saying that he prefers one payer health care.
4. I support clean coal in coal producing states during his first run for president.  At the President's direction his EPA has virtually shut down all coal production.
5. I support all forms of energy production.  Oil exploration has gone up during my term in office.  Obama has stated in private conversations that he is not interested in any energy except green energy.  The fact is that during Obama's term in office oil exploration has been shut down in the Gulf of Mexico and squeezed to a near halt on all federal lands. 
6. I never voted to let babies die that were accidentally born alive instead of aborted.  False.  Not once, but twice Obama voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, an Illinois bill that was meant to provide protection for babies born alive after attempted abortions.
7. Libyan Ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed as the result of a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Islamic video produced in the US.  The White House knew that the attack was not spontaneous and that it was likely an attack by Al-Qaida within 24 hours of the event, yet the President kept telling this lie a week later.
8. We have created millions of new jobs.  If that is true, why are there fewer people employed today then there were when Obama was inaugurated? 
9. I have always reached across the aisle to work with the Republicans.  Never once has the President attempted to work with Republicans to solve problems.  He has never compromised one iota. 
10. Amnesty for undocumented workers [illegals] was blocked by the Republicans.  The truth is that for two years the Democrats had total control of Congress.  The Republicans couldn't block anything.  Yet, the President tells his Hispanic supporters that it is the Republicans fault.

Nearly every day the President utters another lie.  Even claiming that Romney lied is a lie.  His administration is not only filled with liars, it is also filled with law breakers.  For example, his Attorney General, Eric Holder, has told lies under oath before Congress in regard to Operation Fast and Furious.  His Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sibelius, violated the Hatch Act by campaigning for the President.  The White House engineered an advisory telling Lockheed Martin that it did not need to abide by the law requiring them to issue a notice to their workers that they may be laid off due to looming defense cuts.  When a Republican Congress was elected in 2010, the EPA illegally bypassed Congress and issued regulations that were not approved by Congress when put to a vote.

The list goes on and on.  This White House has total disrespect for the law, for Congress, and for the United States Constitution, yet the ITT media always gives Obama a pass.  Even more than that, in the case of Operation Fast and Furious, CBS and others essentially covered up the scandal by not reporting it.  Verbal gaffs by the President and by Vice President Biden simply go unreported.

For this President and his team to talk about Romney lying is sheer hypocrisy.  As the talk show host Chris Plante likes to say, "If it weren't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all."  Indeed.

But don't expect the White House team to change its colors.  The next few weeks will be dirtier and more dishonest than anything you have ever previously witnessed in politics.  The Obama ship is sinking.  The polls are not only up, they are headed further upward and Obama the narcissist can't stand that. 

The next presidential debate will undoubtedly be less fair.  It is a town hall set up and the moderator will be fully in Obama's camp.  He or she knows what happened to Jim Lehrer when he failed to help out Obama in the last debate.  He was derided as incompetent, out of date, unfair, etc.  This time, you can be sure that Obama will be in full attack mode and the moderator will be giving him a boost at every turn.  You will probably get an inkling of the compliant ITT media in full attack mode at the upcoming Vice Presidential debate this coming Thursday.  Stay tuned for the fun and games.

God and the Democratic Party

p>I realize that the national Democratic Convention is shrinking in our rear view mirror, but there was one event at that convention that I quite upsetting—the Democratic Party's elimination of any reference to God in their official Party Platform.  Actually, it is not the elimination of God from the platform presented to the convention that bothers me, but rather the voice vote on whether to put God back into the platform that startled me.  I must admit there was a bit of levity.  The written rules of the Convention said that any changes to the Platform as presented to the delegates required a two-thirds vote.  In other words, in order to re-insert God into the Platform the voice vote had to be clearly a two-thirds majority.  Now, the Democrats have never been big on abiding by the letter of the law.  If you doubt this, consider their approach to the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution.  According to the Democrats, it's not a matter of what the writers of the Constitution intended, but rather how it is interpreted today.  They have even come up with a cute term, "a living Constitution" which is shorthand for the Constitution means whatever we want it to mean. 

Anyway, the individual at the podium called for a voice vote to put God back into the Platform (Did God even want to be there?), but, as millions on TV listened in, it was clear that those in favor of putting the Good Lord back into the Platform were of about the same number as those opposed to putting God back into the document.  In fact, to my ear it sounded as if those opposed outnumbered those in favor.  The podium guy knew that wasn't the right outcome (as scripted by the Party bosses), so he said he could not determine if the necessary two-thirds majority had been reached.  Therefore, he called for a vote again (where was the parliamentarian?) and, not surprisingly, received the same response.  About that time a lady leaned over and counseled the speaker at the podium.  Her comments could be clearly heard through the microphone.  Her advice went something like this, "Just go ahead and call it two-thirds and let's move on."  So the presenter did as suggested and moved on to the next presenter of the evening.  We'll just say that the Democrats found the written rules of the Convention, to be like the US Constitution, a living document to be changed and modified as necessary.

The news media did its best to cover up the unpleasant episode of throwing God out of the Convention and the Platform.  Other scoffed at wasting time on such an insignificant event.  And quickly, with the help of the media, it was swept under the carpet.  But, in fact, does this incident tell us something about the modern Democratic Party? 

When it was discovered that the Democratic Party had left our Maker out of the Platform, it was dismissed as an oversight.  I can just see that explanation now, "Well, we were writing this really serious document, supporting abortion on demand, and homosexual marriage, and just forgot about the God thing.  It just didn't seem relevant."  No one asked God if he felt comfortable in a document that took those positions.  But never mind, this is politics after all and we can't be bothered with things like God.

Leaving God out of the Democratic Party Platform was obviously not an oversight, as claimed.  The truth is, God just didn't fit in very well with abortion, homosexuality and all the jealousy and envy that was part and parcel of the entire Platform.  Sin and God just don't go very well together.

If there was ever a need for evidence that today's Democratic Party is not the Party of Roosevelt, Truman and John F. Kennedy, this is it.  The fact of the matter is that today's Democratic Party has been captured by radicals who would have never felt comfortable in the Democratic Party of FDR, Harry Truman, and JFK.  The 2012 delegates would have felt more at-home in the Socialist Party of Norman Thomas and groups further to the left.  This is not your Father's Democratic Party.  This party has been taken over by secular humanists who are uneasy being in the same room with God.

On at least two occasions President Barack Obama made it clear that he is very comfortable in today's God-free Democratic Party.  He did this by leaving God (the Creator) out of his rendition of words taken from the Declaration of Independence.  He said…

"As wonderful as this land is here in the United States, as much as we have been blessed by the bounty of this magnificent continent that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, what makes this place special is not something physical.  It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire and said, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,'"

What the Declaration really says is…

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." [emphasis added]

But these two omissions were not the first time that our President has shown his disdain for God and for Christianity in particular.  In his first presidential election campaign he spoke to a group of enlightened liberal elites in San Francisco in regard to small town folks in Pennsylvania where businesses had shut down.

"They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion…"

What other implication can you draw from the President's remarks other than people who cling to their guns and religion are naïve fools?  That, apparently, is his real view of people who cling to God.

Anytime the President is unguarded or in bad humor, his true feelings about people and their faith come out.  He doesn't just view his opponents as political rivals, he really dislikes them.   

Speaking to a Hispanic audience, candidate Obama said,

"We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us…"

He's talking about you and me.  We aren't just his political opponents, we are his enemies.  I guess that's why he said in another 2008 campaign speech in Philadelphia…

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun…"

I probably don't need to remind you that this is the same President (and his allies in the News Media) who self-righteously condemned Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, etc. blaming them for the attack on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and others in Tucson, Arizona by a deranged killer.

After Mitt Romney won the Republican nomination for President, Politico reported the Obama re-election strategy this way…

"…the Obama White House thinks they have found the key to the president's re-election: a campaign strategy whose purpose is to 'kill Romney.'  Democrats will not only seek to besmirch the record of the former Massachusetts governor, but they will also slime his character..." [emphasis added]

But as I said, this is not the Democratic Party or a Democratic President in the mold of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S Truman, or John F. Kennedy.  All of these men made frequent references to God and to our Creator.  Each one loved this country.  I didn't agree with their political philosophy, but they were Americans through and through.  Both Truman and Kennedy fought for their country, Truman in World War I, and Kennedy in World War II.  Roosevelt, of course, was unable to fight for his nation due to his physical handicap.  There's no doubt in my mind, that had he been able he would have done so.  All these men were liberals, but they were not radicals.  They respected the Founders and they acknowledged the long Christian heritage of this nation.

President Roosevelt didn't announce the D-Day invasion with a boisterous speech.  Instead, he announced it with a prayer that read in part…

"…help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice."  …I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer.  As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts…And, O Lord, give us Faith.  Give us Faith in Thee…With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy…Thy will be done, Almighty God…Amen."

It was planned to add this historic prayer to the walls of the World War II Memorial in Washington, DC, but that effort has been blocked by the Obama White House.

This is not your father's Democratic Party.  Barack Obama is not Franklin D. Roosevelt.  He is not Harry Truman.  He is not John F. Kennedy.  Barack Obama is a far left radical with an agenda and an outlook that far different from any President, Republican or Democrat, who preceded him. 

There's still time for you to get this message out to your old time Democrat friends.  Do it before November 6th.

AARP vs. Senior Citizens

Do you really know what AARP—the American Association of Retired Personsstands for?  Do you know how they spend your dues and the money they make off of you for buying the products and services they promote?

Without putting too fine a point on it, AARP is a seniors scam.  No, I'm not suggesting that they embezzle funds or do anything illegal.  I'm just saying that the folks that run AARP are political con artists—smart folks, but con artists, nonetheless.

Barack Obama and his "Alinsky Jujitsu" has nothing on the folks at AARP.  Founded in 1958, AARP has, for decades, been using membership dues to promote a political agenda that is the exact opposite of the vast majority of their members.  By the way, "Alinsky Jujitsu" comes from President Obama's hero, Saul Alinsky, who wrote the book, Rules for Radicals.  Obama not only subscribes to "Alinsky Jujitsu,"he used Rules for Radicals as a textbook when he was a college lecturer.  The essence of the message in the Alinsky book is to say one thing convincingly, and then do just the opposite.  The root of the Alinsky idea can be found in a pamphlet written by Vladimir Lenin titled "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back" that was published in Vienna, Austria in the summer of 1904.  This theory of political warfare became the operating standard of the Bolsheviks violent rise to power in Russia.  It is certainly curious as to why the Obama for President campaign selected the word Forward as the slogan of his 2012 re-election effort.  The slogan, Forward, has been used repeatedly by the Communist movement, as documented by the Breitbart web site…

"The poster [shown on the web site] "Forward, to the Victory of Communism," …is typical not only of Soviet propaganda but also of propaganda throughout the communist world, from the 19th century to the present.  Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, for example, published several articles in 1844 in the pages of the short-lived Vorwärts! ("Forward!"), an important radical journal that was later emulated by communist and socialist publications throughout Europe."

Is the use of this slogan by the far left Obama campaign apparatus a coincidence?  Perhaps it is.  Or perhaps it is not.  You can decide for yourself.

But let's get back to Obama's allies at AARP.  Ironically, AARP was founded by a conservative Republican, Ethel Percy Andrus, the first female high school principal in California.  Andrus had absolutely no use whatsoever for socialism or any kind of socialistic endeavor such as ObamaCare.  Sadly, this is not true of the AARP leadership today.

The leadership of AARP not only deceives their members, but do it in a very deliberate, calculated way.  There's nothing accidental or unintentional about the way the leadership of AARP works.  With more than 40 million members, AARP claims to speak for all senior citizens.  The truth is that hundreds of thousands of new members join AARP each year to get benefits—gap insurance, mutual fund offers, life insurance, travel benefits, etc.  That's the beginning of the con.  All the new offers for membership never mention that the members will be used as fodder to advance a far left agenda.

During the battle to enact ObamaCare, AARP was one of the most powerful dogs in the fight.  With millions of dollars to spend, AARP put its full weight behind the efforts to enact ObamaCare.  AARP lobbyists worked night and day to pass this socialist scheme, and, if you are a member of AARP, you helped them do it.  But truthfully, AARP's backing of ObamaCare is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to supporting legislation that is not in the best interest of seniors.

How active was AARP in support of ObamaCare?  An article by Kimberley Strassel in The Wall Street Journal provides the details. 

"…71 pages of emails show an AARP management taking orders from the White House, scripting the president's talking points, working to keep its board 'in line.' And pledging fealty to 'the cause.'"

"The emails show an AARP leadership—Policy Chief John Rother, health Policy Director Nora Super, Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond, Senior Vice President David Sloane—that from the start worked to pass ObamaCare, before crucial details pertaining to seniors had been addressed.  This crew was in constant contact with Mr. Obama's top aides, in particular Nancy-Ann DeParle and Jim Messina."

"In August 2009, AARP had already unveiled a national advertising blitz for ObamaCare, to ensure that 'every member of Congress knows the 50-plus community wants action to fix what's wrong with healthcare.'  The group made this claim despite weeks of daily tracking showing its members in revolt against the president's plan."

"July 23, 2009:  AARP reported to the White House that 1,032 members called in against the proposed health-care changes; 77 called in support.  July 28, 2009:  4,174 opposed; 36 in support.  July 29, 2009:  2,656 opposed; 23 in support.  Mr. Sloane told the White House that AARP lost 1,897 members in a single day 'in disagreement over our position on health reform.'  All the reports to Team Obama were accompanied by AARP's request to keep the information 'close,' apparently so word didn't leak that seniors hate ObamaCare.  And the ad blitz went on."

As these records show convincingly, the leadership of AARP knowingly betrayed the wishes of its members.  It's hard to describe such betrayal as anything less than a failure of integrity and a lack of honesty.  In short, the political agenda of the leadership was put before the wishes of the membership of AARP.

Sadly, AARP is almost always on the wrong side of the issue when it comes to seniors.  Quietly, but successfully, the AARP lobbyists back every bill that comes down the pike that hurts seniors.  Like an 800 pound gorilla, AARP blocks every attempt to reform and stabilize Social Security and Medicare.  They only like Social Security and Medicare when they are redistributionist programs, not when free market reforms are proposed that would benefit seniors.

Did AARP lift a finger to oppose the $716 billion raid on Medicare contained in the ObamaCare legislation?  No, they did not.  Did AARP make any effort to eliminate the "death panels" that are to be implemented under ObamaCare?  No, they did not.  Did AARP worry about ObamaCare rationing health care and discouraging young people from becoming doctors and nurses?  Apparently, that was of no concern.  Did AARP give any consideration to trillions of increased debt ObamaCare would place on future generations?  Apparently not.

During the effort to ram ObamaCare through Congress, AARP held supporting rallies.  At one, Barry Rand, CEO of AARP, introduced Vice President Biden with these words…

"I have the distinct honor of introducing a great American who has for all of his life worked for those who are in need and fought for the middle class,"

Rand donated $8,900 to Obama's 2008 presidential election campaign and, in fact, that support was not limited to the CEO of AARP.  Analysis of AARP employees who identified themselves as working for the organization "gave $48,801 to Democratic candidates, party committees, and leadership PACs, compared with only $5,121 to Republicans -- meaning more than 90 percent of the money went to Democrats."  The analysis was conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics and reported in an article published in the American Spectator.

But it's not just ObamaCare that AARP has supported.  AARP has used dues money, and other money earned from its members, to lobby for all sorts of liberal legislation that has nothing whatsoever to do with seniors.  The bottom line is that AARP is a far left lobbyist group that derives its money from folks who oppose virtually everything it stands for.

Although posing as the voice of seniors in the US, AARP does not poll its membership on legislative issues like ObamaCare.  It wouldn't dare.  It knows that its legislative agenda would be scuttled.  Instead, it poses as a moderate, middle of the road, politically unaligned organization, while spending hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to pass a far left agenda.  This bait and switch operation has been going on for decades and there is no indication of any reform or change on the horizon.  In fairness, it should be called the FLAARP—the Far Left Association of Retired Persons.

Its record in support or against legislation that benefits seniors is not the only problem with AARP.  It's just not a good deal for seniors.  On occasion, it has worked for or against legislation that would have helped seniors because the legislation did not financially benefit AARP.  There have also been instances where AARP has offered a "bargain" mutual fund that was identical to another fund that could have been purchased outside of AARP for less fees. 

No matter how you slice it, AARP is a bad bargain.  It's a bad bargain for the United States.  It's a bad bargain for our children and grandchildren.  It's a bad bargain financially, and it's a bad political and financial bargain for seniors.  Seniors who overwhelmingly care about the national debt, about spending, about inflation, and about the future of their children and grandchildren are being used by AARP to advance legislation, ideas, concepts, and programs with which the vast majority of seniors disagree.

My advice to you is, don't join.  Don't be sucked in.  Don't be conned.  Don't be duped by the leftists leading AARP.  There are other groups out there such as AMAC—the Association of Mature American Citizens that not only does not lobby for things you do not believe in, but offers travel and insurance benefits that are equal to or better than what you will get through AARP.  Whatever you do, don't join AARP and if you already have, tear up you membership card and join a group that doesn't lobby against your interests as a senior, such as AMAC (www.amac.us) or the 60 Plus Association (www.60plus.org).   These are fine groups with excellent benefits and a philosophy that is consistent with the conservative views of most seniors.