Election 2012
“Unless you’re a dupe, you don’t vote for or against
someone because of their race, religion or gender. You don’t vote for them
because they are smart or attractive. You don’t vote for them because they say
they will give you money or power. You vote for someone you trust to protect
your freedom.” (GVS - 9/30/11)
“President
Obama and his team should just as vigorously declare
that a candidate's faith should be ‘off limits.’ They should, but they won't. Why?
Because the Obama White House and campaign are
counting on the smear-merchants from the left to continually target Mitt
Romney's faith from now to Election Day. Not only are they counting on them to
engage in this un-American attack, but they need the haters in the far-left
media, in Hollywood, in the music business and in education to do their dirty
work … While Dowd is proudly carrying the Bigot Baton, others from the far left
are quickly sprinting to her side … Recently, the liberal Al Hunt of the
equally liberal Bloomberg ‘News’ wrote a two-for-one column in which he not
only tried to amplify those doubts about Romney's faith, but belittled
Evangelical Christians at the same time … [Obama] must
now personally and publicly call off Schweitzer and his other corrupt
supporters from the left who are eagerly and continually targeting Romney's
faith. If he does not, Obama merely confirms his
campaign strategy.” (5/15/2012)
“Moreover,
in an age where some seek to drive a wedge between fiscal conservatives and
social conservatives, members of the LDS church understand that family issues
are economic issues. They understand that children raised by a father and
mother in a low-conflict marriage are more likely to graduate high school,
graduate college, stay out of jail, secure a good-paying job, and eventually
have successful marriages of their own. That’s one reason why the LDS church
places such a premium on the hard work of childrearing, as seen in Ann Romney’s
noble choice to work at home, investing in their family in a 24-7 job whose
only paycheck is a dividend of love and satisfaction, and whose
employee-of-the-month awards are photographs of a woman laughing and smiling
with her children. Contrast this pro-faith, pro-family picture with President Obama’s radical agenda. It’s more than his war on people of
faith (especially Catholics) or his fringe views on abortion. In President Obama’s worldview, government usurps the place of family.
Big Brother becomes Big Father who brings home the bacon through government
entitlements covering everything from housing, to education, to food (stamps),
to government-run healthcare. You need have faith in government alone, as the
collective state becomes the god in whom you trust and from whom you receive
your daily bread. And they replace the family unit with the state, undermining
the foundational unit of civilization. This attempt to—as President Obama puts it—‘fundamentally transform the United States of
America’ must be stopped … Both the LDS church in general—and the Romneys in particular—not only understand these truths of
the family as the essential foundation for American prosperity, they embrace
them. And the LDS focus on self-reliance at the family level, of responsibly
stewarding financial resources and planning for a rainy day, is naturally
opposed to big-government programs to redistribute wealth and centralize decisionmaking. Surveying the differences between both
candidates and considering what’s at stake (i.e., America’s future), we believe
conservatives will flock to Romney.” (5/10/2012)
http://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackwell/2012/05/09/evangelicals_will_rally_for_romney/page/full/
“As
night follows day, Mitt Romney’s ascension to the status of Republican
presidential nominee-in-waiting has been followed by escalating attacks from
the left on every aspect of the candidate’s character and heritage, including
his Mormon faith. Every day seems to produce fresh examples of the left’s
anti-Mormonism … Every poll that breaks down Americans’ views of Mormonism by
political party shows that, on average, the more liberal a person’s politics,
the more likely he is to have anti-Mormon bias … Romney’s faith will continue
to be a major target for liberal pundits and Obama
surrogates. Liberal comics will no doubt continue to have a field day
lampooning its more exotic traditions … The liberal media attack Romney’s faith
not because they are skeptical about its doctrines. Secularists don’t care
about theological debates … They scrutinize Romney’s faith mainly because
Romney is the only one standing between their candidate, Barack
Obama, and a second term. Which is the same reason
even the most conservative evangelical should be willing to overlook Romney’s
faith come Election Day.” (5/1/2012)
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51191
“Let’s talk about Mitt Romney’s
underwear. A caller to the radio mentioned them yesterday. He was a
sick-sounding man … He clearly felt he was making some sort of a point. And he
was. That he was an idiot and a bigot … Mitt Romney is a Mormon. That is a
Christian religion founded in 1830 in upstate New York. Some Mormons do wear a
religious garment under their outer clothes ... What is a religious garment?
Well, it depends on the religion. Several faiths have unique bits of clothing
that mostly seem to have the same purpose – to remind believers of who they are
and what they have promised to God … Roman Catholic religious have worn sacred
garments for 1,700 years. Similarly, religious garments – or ‘habits’ – have
been worn by Anglicans and religious of the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and Greek
Orthodox churches. Some of these garments are priestly, and just for ceremonial
purposes, while others are worn constantly as a declaration of faith. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, specialized
articles of religious clothing, of one type or another, have been worn for at
least 4,000 years. Some of these have been visible, as a sign to the world, and
some have been worn under other clothes, as a reminder to the wearer. In Islam,
many women wear religiously prescribed head coverings, as they have since the
religion’s founding. Some Muslim women also wear a veil … The point of all this
is that religions around the world have various types of religious garments. If
you do the math, most believers on earth belong to a religion that commands its
followers or leaders to wear religiously significant clothing. Mormons are part
of that majority … So, yes, Mitt Romney wears a
religious garment, beneath his outer clothes. He does this for the same reason
almost all religious clothing is worn – to remind the believer that he
is a believer, and as a token of promises the believer has made to God.
Promises which, like the garment that represents them, are sacred, and should
not be made fun of. At least not by decent people.” (4/24/2012)
http://www.wham1180.com/pages/boblonsberry.html?article=10037569
“As the various news outlets started finding out that BHO’s buddies were sordid, anti-American fellows of the baser sort; his favorite book was dedicated to Lucifer; his endorsers included Communists and Hamas; and his folks weren’t exactly the Huxtables, the mainstream media decided, ‘Eh, let’s not talk about his past and his present friends and philosophy but rather how inspiring his fuzzy speeches are and how skinny he is’ … When common folks discovered Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s religious views were racist, Marxist and nuttier than a squirrel’s turd, some rightly wondered if BHO also believed this bogus smack, and if not, why he would sit for twenty years listening to those race-baiting beliefs if he fundamentally and radically disagreed. Why, they wondered, did he not vehemently condemn this cuckoo stuff? The media, however, decided for us cattle that Reverend Wright’s racially-charged sermons, his black liberation theology and the fact that Obama sat for two decades under this slow drip of heresy wasn’t newsworthy … Fast-forward to 2012 and Mitt Romney and his religion … The same media that ignored information about Obama’s racist religious roots steeped in Marxism is already queuing up with queries about Romney’s Mormonism as somehow being weird and a tad white … The duplicitous journalists who saw no story in the well-documented anti-honky rhetoric of Wright’s/Obama’s ‘religion’ now want to paint Romney with the racist brush? How convenient. As an evangelical I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t get Mormonism, but I do get Marxism, and we’re now seeing the political fruit coming from Obama’s ignored and divisive theological roots … In 2012 I will take a quasi-conservative Mormon who has been ridiculously successful over an uncompromised Marxist any ol’ day. And lastly, a word of advice for the MSM: I would leave Mitt’s Mormonism well enough alone unless, of course, you want Obama’s religious roots to be exposed, as well. I believe Americans will find in Mormonism more pro-traditional American sentiments than they will in Reverend Wright’s greatest sermon collections.” (4/16/2012)
“President Obama
would have us believe that there is some kind of war on women, just in time for
his re-election effort. But he is the one who made sure that China’s monstrous
population effort would be fully supported by the UN Fund for Population
Activities (UNFPA). Two days after assuming power, President Obama revoked the Reagan-era Mexico City policy of the
previous administration. He forces us to fund international Planned Parenthood.
That means that the world-wide war on baby girls will go forward, with U.S.
taxpayers footing part of the bill. President Obama
says that attempts to cut off taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood are part
of a campaign against women. Hundreds of millions of baby girls have been
killed. Demographer Nick Eberstadt has carefully documented this ‘gendercide.’ This world-wide ‘war against baby girls’ is a
major result of Planned Parenthood’s population control ideology and its
aggressive marketing of abortion-on-demand. While Dr. Eberstadt
demonstrates that this war on baby girls is having disastrous consequences now,
it can have even more terrible implications in the future. We are looking at
the collapse of whole nations … So next time you hear a liberal or a reporter
going on about a ‘war on women,’ make sure to ask if this commentator favors
legal protection of unborn baby girls. If they do, then we can take the rest of
their comments seriously. If they say that’s a matter of ‘choice,’ remind them
that millions of unborn baby girls never got to choose life.” (4/9/2012)
http://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackwell/2012/04/08/obamas_own_war_on_women/page/full/
“Barack Obama’s handlers continually seem to look for opportunities
to create analogous comparisons between Obama and
other iconic American figures, in the hopes that some patina of their greatness
will burnish Obama’s flawed image … Mr Obama appeals to his
supporters by promising something for nothing. Any costs for the promised
largess (healthcare, housing, food, education, etc) are to be the
responsibility of someone else. Kennedy by contrast, wanted Americans to remain
an aspirational people. Kennedy believed passionately
in American exceptionalism—and championed some of the
most dramatic plans to put a man on the moon. Obama,
after shutting down space travel, with no belief in American exceptionalism, praises a NASA leader who has diverged
dramatically from NASA’s core mission to claim that NASA’s new mission priority
is Muslim outreach. Many are still alive who knew Jack Kennedy, and it goes
without saying that Barack Obama
is no Jack Kennedy … Obama, so far, has been bad--a
litany of gaffes, policy missteps, race-baiting, class warfare mongering,
blame-gaming, tin-cupping, whining and betrayal of American values. One thing
is certain: Barack Obama
has little in common with any president our country has ever had. Hopefully,
this Obama hiccup in history will be of short
duration, nothing more than ‘a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
and signifying nothing.’” (4/3/2012)
http://townhall.com/columnists/luritadoan/2012/04/02/who_is_barack_obama/page/full/
“Any Republican governor of a blue state who
manages to balance the budget without raising taxes should be a nominee for
Mount Rushmore, to say nothing of president. Mitt Romney was governor of a
state so blue, it's North Korea with more Irish people, and he balanced the
budget without raising taxes. Even Ronald Reagan raised taxes as governor of
California, imposing a $1 billion tax increase his first year in office. It was
the largest tax hike by a governor in the nation's history, raising income,
corporate, sales and inheritance taxes. Five years later, Reagan raised taxes
again by another $1.5 billion … Republicans are able to contextualize Reagan's
record - it was California! -- but seem unable to contextualize Mitt Romney's
record, even though he had to govern a state far more liberal than California
was half a century ago. When Reagan was governor, the California Assembly was
majority Democrat, but the Senate was evenly split between Republicans and
Democrats. Gov. Romney had to contend with a 200-person state Legislature that
included only 29 Republicans … Like Reagan, Romney inherited a huge,
Democrat-created budget deficit. The existing Massachusetts deficit was already
more than half a billion dollars when Romney took office halfway through a
fiscal year, with a projected deficit of $3 billion for the following fiscal
year. And yet, Romney balanced Massachusetts' budget each year he was in office
and left the state with a surplus, without raising taxes Romney left his successor, Deval Patrick, Democrat and friend of Obama,
with a ‘rainy day fund’ of $2.1 billion, more than tripled from $640 million
when Romney took office. (Of course, as soon as Romney was gone, Patrick raided
the rainy day fund, increased government spending and raised taxes.) Meanwhile,
when he was in Congress, Santorum wouldn't even vote to eliminate federal
funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Santorum supported all sorts
of big-government spending plans -- No Child Left Behind, prescription drug
coverage for seniors and the ‘bridge to nowhere.’ But you'd think we would at
least have Santorum's vote against federal funding for pornographers and
deviants. Alas, no … just the endless redistribution of an ever-dwindling pool
of wealth from the makers to the takers, overseen by career politicians like
Rick Santorum. Mitt Romney has spent no time in Washington. He was a rabidly
frugal fiscal conservative in a state where cutting government spending was as
foreign an idea as it is in Washington today.” (3/30/2012)
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50373
“Friends describe Immelt as privately dismayed that, even after three years on the job, President Obama hasn’t moved to the center, but instead further left. The GE CEO, I’m told, is appalled by everything from the president’s class-warfare rhetoric to his continued belief that big government is the key to economic salvation. Or, as one friend recently put it to me, ‘Jeff thought he could make a difference, and now realizes he couldn’t’ … GE has too much to lose for Immelt to publicly ’fess up to his disdain … And of course the last thing Immelt or his shareholders need is for the president to turn his class-warfare fire on them, as he did to his erstwhile pals in the banking business … Yet even as Immelt continues to dispense advice to the president, friends tell me, he’s privately rooting for Mitt Romney to win the Republican nomination and defeat Obama in the fall.” (3/25/2012)
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/bam_angry_adviser_YOANZQkGODYVqFDAsI9LjP
“Should you vote for Barack
Obama or the Republican candidate in 2012? Here's a
little [15 question] quiz to help you decide … 2) Do you want see gas prices
rise as fast as possible while Barack Obama slow walks offshore drilling, blocks the Keystone Pipeline,
and opposes ANWR? 3) Obama's stimulus may have been
the single most wasteful expenditure in human history. It cost more than the "Marshall Plan, the Louisiana Purchase, and putting a man on
the moon" combined and yet, numerous critics correctly
predicted that it wouldn't work. Do you want more stimulus bills like that one
in the future? … 6) America lost its AAA credit rating under Obama, we had the highest monthly deficit in American history just
last month, and the projected 10 year deficit under Obama
is more than 13 trillion dollars. Do you want to see this kind of spending
continue? … 9) Whether you're rich, poor, or the middle class, one thing you
can be sure of is that your taxes will go up if Barack Obama is reelected? Do you want your taxes to go
up? … That's the quiz! Count up how many ‘yes’ answers you have and see how you
scored!” (3/17/2012)
“Governor Romney gained at least 41 delegates
with his victories in Hawaii and American Samoa, and strong percentages of the
vote in Mississippi and Alabama … He has twice the number of delegates as Senator Santorum and
has received over one million votes more than Santorum in the GOP primary
contests to date. Further, despite Senator Santorum’s wins last
night, Governor Romney has received more votes in Southern contests than
Senator Santorum, even without counting Virginia, where Santorum’s team failed
to qualify for the ballot ... Currently,
of all the remaining delegates, Senator Santorum must win 69% and Speaker
Gingrich must win 78% to reach the 1,144 delegates necessary to win.
Their track records demonstrate why this is impossible-- so far, Senator
Santorum has won only 26% of the delegates awarded and Speaker Gingrich has won
only 14%. In addition, with only four upcoming contests (Utah, New Jersey,
DC, and Delaware) truly “winner take all,” there are limited opportunities to
post large delegate gains.” (3/14/2012)
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/03/14/confirmed_romney_expanded_delegate_lead_last_night
“The exit polls had been strikingly accurate
for the past two months, and here the Mississippi exit poll showed the two leaders within a
percentage point of each other. The largest error in the past six contests had
been half a percent … To be fair, Mississippi is a state Romney should not have
seriously contested, based on demographics … Still, the exit polls were wrong. But
close observers ought to have suspected something was amiss as soon as they
peaked inside the exit polls. As we noted last week, the most potent question
in exit polls this year is whether it matters to you that the candidate ‘shares
your religious beliefs.’ Those who say it matters a ‘great deal’ tilt heavily against Romney … The trouble, of course, is
that the explanation proves a little too much … In any case, it remains
intriguing that the best leverage for explaining just about anything this
primary season — in this case the exit poll error — remains the ‘great deal’
religion question.” (3/14/2012)
“After Tuesday votes in Mississippi, Alabama,
Hawaii and American Samoa:
DELEGATES WON
41 Romney
35 Santorum
24 Gingrich
1 Paul”
(3/14/2012)
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2012/03/romney_won_tuesday_delegate_ha.html
“Over and over again you hear pundits say
things like, ‘Well if you look at the math’ ...
and ‘Romney wants to focus on just the math.’ There should be a gong at the
ready when talking heads and pundits go into that mode. The nominating process
is about the delegates. Math, like gravity, can’t be ignored. To be clear, Santorum cannot win the nomination by closely
splitting proportional states and losing winner-take-all states. That is a
formula for falling further and further behind. And that is what is happening.
There are 1,358 delegates yet to be awarded. Romney
has 495. He needs 694 delegates, less than 48 percent of the remaining
delegates, to wrap it up. That’s not ‘just’ math; that’s the reality of the
nominating process.” (3/14/2012)
“From a pragmatic point of analysis, there is
NO scenario wherein Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich, or anyone else other than
Mitt Romney can accumulate the needed 1,144 delegates … Mitt Romney has won
nearly 50% (he has also won 14 of 22 states), Rick Santorum has won about 19%
and Gingrich has won about 12%. From another vantage point, Mitt has to win
approximately 50% of the remaining delegates, Santorum and Gingrich have to win
approximately 70% and 73%, respectively. Even if Santorum or Gingrich were to
convince nearly 90% of the unbound delegates to support them, they would still
fall short. Pragmatically, it is finished … Math is math. The Parrker analysis confirms what the 30,000 foot look down
revealed. So the nomination is decided though the primary campaign is not over.
Indeed, the next few weeks will likely bring wins to Rick Santorum in Kansas
and Missouri and possibly Alabama and Mississippi … But the nominee will be
Mitt Romney barring some enormous calamity or collapse of the sort that has
never happened this late in a primary campaign after all the vetting has been
done. So what is Romney to do? That's easy: Stay focused on the president and
build, build build the campaign networks for the fall
in the key states for the November campaign … One last thought: Team Romney had
better be training up the lawyers it will need to dispatch around the country
next November, a vast army of good, tenacious lawyers. A margin as close in any
key fall contest as those he won by in Ohio and Michigan will mean a lawyered-up recount everywhere, with all the resources of
the DOJ deployed in a shamelessly partisan way against the counting of real
votes. Unless, of course, 21012 turns out to be a replay of 1980. If it's not
close, they can't cheat.” (3/8/2012)
http://townhall.com/columnists/hughhewitt/2012/03/07/doing_the_math_on_romneys_path/page/full/
“Of course, even the NFM can't pretend Ron
Paul's supporters would pick Gingrich or Santorum, both big-government, career
politicians, as their second choice … Reporting their hopes and dreams rather
than the facts, they simply assert that all votes for Santorum or Gingrich are
‘anti-Romney’ votes. It's not Republicans who are looking for the anti-Romney.
It's Democrats. Obama is already spending millions of
dollars on anti-Romney ads. Obama's campaign adviser
David Axelrod, is desperately tweeting anti-Romney messages all day long. In
open primaries in Michigan and Ohio, Obama's
Democratic supporters came out to vote for Santorum or Gingrich. MSNBC hosts
openly encourage Democrats to vote for Rick Santorum. There's a reason liberals
are frantically searching for an anti-Romney candidate. While it's true that
any of the Republican candidates for president would be an improvement over Obama, it is not true that any of them can beat him …
Reagan beat the odds and took out an incumbent by waging a charm campaign to
win over independents, moderates and undecideds …
Reagan's chief of staff, said Reagan would simply ‘point out the failures of
the Carter record.’ Not call him a socialist or fake Christian. Just a failure
… For Evangelicals concerned about a Mormon president -- or any Christians
still trying to make sense of the Carter presidency -- recall that Martin
Luther said he'd rather be governed by a smart Turk than a dumb Christian ...
Reagan was able to sell challenging ideas to moderates because he wasn't being
constantly upstaged by loud-mouthed idiots attacking him for being
insufficiently pure (as governor of California, he raised taxes more than any
other governor in U.S. history and signed the most liberal abortion law in the
country) or muddying the water with utterly irrelevant battles about
contraception. Liberals never dreamed that they would get so much assistance
from alleged conservatives in undermining Obama's
most formidable opponent!” (3/8/2012)
“Santorum is not necessarily the best
candidate for the Tea Party either, considering he expressed
his distaste for the Tea Party a couple of years ago, ‘I have some real
concerns about this movement within the Republican party…to sort of refashion
conservatism. And I will vocally and publicly oppose it’ … What may ultimately
turn conservatives away from Santorum are the robocalls
he ran in Michigan this past week attacking Mitt Romney. They were directed
into Democratic households, urging Democrats to vote in the Republican primary
against Romney since Romney opposed the auto bailouts. The calls sounded like
they were coming from Democrats until the very end when the Santorum campaign
was identified. This kind of dirty campaigning, which tricks opponents into
voting for you, crosses the line, especially since Santorum also opposed the
auto bailouts.” (3/2/2012)
“The desire to ‘get on with it’ is growing
and crowding out patience with the anti-Romney activists … Not surprisingly for
an extremely successful executive across different platforms --business, sports
and government-- Romney profits from mistakes, doesn't shun their autopsies,
and addresses the weaknesses they reveal. In this way the last two months have
been very good for him, his campaign team, and the GOP's chances in November …
the entire GOP has to get back to talking every day about the president's
failed policies, broken promises, and the incredibly dangerous prospect of a
second Obama term, one in which the already imperious
president becomes wholly unrestrained in his exercise of what he thinks to be
his powers. $5 a gallon gas? Think $10 a gallon, and hearing the president call
it a prudent policy for the future of the planet … The stakes are too high to
keep fighting the undercard again and again and again though the Chicago Gang
and their allies in the MSM will want us to.” (2/29/2012)
http://townhall.com/columnists/hughhewitt/2012/02/29/mitts_big_night_and_the_road_ahead/page/full/
“It's
strange that Santorum doesn't seem to understand the crucial state-federal
divide bequeathed to us by the framers of our Constitution, inasmuch as it is
precisely that difference that underlies his own point that states could ban
contraception ... The Constitution mostly places limits on what the federal
government can do. Only in a few instances does it restrict what states can do.
A state cannot, for example, infringe on the people's right to bear arms or to
engage in the free exercise of religion ... But with rare exceptions, the
Constitution leaves states free to govern themselves as they see fit … He
genuinely does not seem to understand the Constitution's federalist framework …
Otherwise, he wouldn't keep claiming, falsely, that Obamacare
is the same as Romneycare … If he truly believed in
the Constitution, Santorum wouldn't be promoting big social programs out of the
federal government, such as tripling the child tax credit exemption and voting
for ‘No Child Left Behind.’ No federalist can support this man … Santorum can't
be the one arguing for our side. Even when he's asked to defend his own
blindingly obvious point, Santorum manages to blow it.” (2/29/2012)
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49879
“Unlike
actual Establishment candidates, Romney has never worked in Washington, much less
spent his entire life as a professional politician. He's had a Midas touch with
every enterprise he has ever run, including Bain Capital, the Olympics and
Massachusetts. The chestnut about Mitt Romney being pushed on unsuspecting
conservatives by ‘the Establishment’ is the exact opposite of the truth. The
Establishment, by any sensible definition, is virulently opposed to Romney --
and for completely contradictory reasons … The entire NFM (non-Fox media) hate
Romney because he is the only candidate who stands a chance of beating Obama … In 2008, Romney was enthusiastically supported not
only by Limbaugh and Levin, but also by Sean Hannity,
Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Laura Ingraham, Michael
Savage and many others who now seem to view Romney as a closet liberal ...
[some] conservatives are completely convinced that Romney is an Establishment
candidate simply because they have heard that repeated so often. As we say to
dunderhead liberals: What we're looking for here is facts, not chants or
epithets … Instead of talking about the candidates' positions -- which would be
confusing inasmuch as Romney is the most conservative of the four remaining
candidates … We're being asked to hand Obama another
four years in the White House in order to ‘send a message.’ To whom? And what
message? That we're morons? Message received! Meanwhile, Romney cheerfully
campaigns on, the biggest outsider and most conservative candidate we've run
for president since Reagan, while being denounced by the Establishment as ‘too
Establishment.’” (2/24/2012)
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49702&s=rcmp
“Let
us not forget that anybody the GOP picks will be far superior than the current
resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Not convinced? Here’s the evidence: Mountain of debt … ObamaCare
demise … Capitalism reasserted … Energy myopia … Class warfare … Judicial
nominations … Regulatory overkill …
Union coddling … War on terror … Leadership deficit.” (2/18/2012)
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49597
=======================================================
Letter
to a Friend (modified 2/7/2012)
Normally I do not engage in these kinds of discussions
but I am taking time to do so now because I have great appreciation and respect
for you and many others with various political opinions.
Ron Paul has taken many beneficial positions,
but in foreign policy relating to self defense Paul seems to be to the left of Obama. In the ongoing war Paul would allow Israel and the
U.S. to be nuked by evil tyrants before taking self defensive preemptive
action. We have to be willing to die for freedom, but dying at the hands of
tyrants in these circumstances would be offensive to wisdom, courage, and
liberty.
Many voted for Ross Perot because he seemed
to be more conservative than George Bush, splitting the conservative vote, and
that's how we got Clinton. Many conservatives sat at home or voted “third
party” in 2008 because they did not want to vote for RINO McCain, and that's
how we got Obama. How many times do we have to repeat that same mistake! Defeating
the enemies of freedom has to become more important than any of our other
differences.
If Obama is reelected
there will be no stopping them. There would not be enough congressional votes
to impeach him and the supreme court would soon be under their control.
Consider the ultimate and useless tragedy of diverting votes that could have
been used to defeat Obama to an obviously losing
candidate resulting in a victorious Obama who then
completely contravenes or suspends the constitution.
In the primaries there will naturally be some
disagreements. In the general election Obama
represents an immediate threat to freedom that must be defeated regardless of
any other issue. The "correct choice" for us and our children is a
unified vote to defeat Obama, not a split one that
will allow him to destroy the constitution and the country. If we are not
careful we will lose the election and our freedom because we failed to unite
against the liberal, progressive, socialist war on the constitution.
If we are willing to unite with the founding
fathers in the maxim, “Give me liberty or give me death,” we must be willing to
postpone all partisan interests until after this election. All wrestling over
ideology must be put on hold because none of it will matter if Obama wins.
Gene Van Shaar © 2012
=========================================================
“This November, voters will finally have a
chance to end President Obama’s assault on our
free-enterprise system and send him packing … Of course this president
inherited a significant national debt, but over the last three years he’s made
it worse by almost 50 percent. For the first time since World War II, our debt
is larger than our economy ... While today he bemoans and blames … the reality
is that he and his party controlled the White House, Senate and House for his
first two years in office. In that time, he got virtually everything he asked
for … The result? A debt-fueled over-expansion of government, unconstitutional
and job-killing mandates, failed economic policies, broken promises and no plan
to tackle our long-term challenges. With this abysmal record, he will do whatever
it takes to make this election about anything but his failed leadership. He is
betting on a strategy that divides the American people into haves and
have-nots, and uses class-warfare politics to prey on people’s uncertainty
about the future. In sum, he tells Americans worried about their jobs that the
way to help them is to raise their bosses’ taxes ... These divisive ideas and
rhetoric have never worked in the past. On the contrary, people end up fleeing
countries that adopt economic policies based on these flawed principles
... The president desperately wants this
presidential campaign to be a public spectacle of punishing and shaming
success, with him as the ring leader. In reality, it will be a referendum on
our economic heritage. It will be a choice between having a government that
reaches deep into our economy and lives, or a limited government that trusts
the free enterprise system to turn good ideas, risk-taking and hard work into
jobs and prosperity.” (2/6/2012)
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49334
“Newt lost support in his last week in
Florida because conservatives gave him a closer look. Sure, we loved his
one-liners singeing the tail feathers of the liberal media and politicians.
Yet, we have to put someone up against President Barack
Obama who can win. Moreover, we have to put someone
in the White House who can govern. With Newt, we would be explaining his
gyrations every few days during the campaign. And in the unlikely event that he
should win, we would be spending the next four years apologizing for his
extravagance. I did it once before in the 1990s, and I can tell you that it was
a thankless task … In his narcissism, impulsiveness and deviancy, Newt is at one
with the Clintons. Mitt -- and for that matter, Santorum -- are just the
opposite.” (2/2/2012)
http://townhall.com/columnists/emmetttyrrell/2012/02/02/exit_newt/page/full/
“Romney had focused most of his critical
comments in previous states on President Barack Obama, attempting to set himself up as the presumptive GOP
nominee. But after his disappointing loss in South Carolina, he switched
strategies. ‘He realized he needed to show not just that he could take a punch,
but that he could swing back as well,’ Jowers said …
appreciative that when he takes some unfair punches to the face in South
Carolina, he will defend himself in Florida." (1/30/2012)
“So, it turns out that the cool cat billed as
‘No Drama Obama’ by his sycophants is actually quite
the drama queen. While the White House publicly pretends to ignore conservative
detractors of his administration, Chief Touchy-Touchy seems to be personally consumed
by our critiques … According to Brewer, ‘He was a little disturbed about my
book’ ... In the shadow of Air Force One, Obama
complained that Brewer hadn't ‘treated him cordially’ and then stalked off
while she was responding mid-sentence … Rick Perry of Texas and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana -- have recounted similar presidential
snit fits on the tarmac … As longtime observers of the royal Obamas have long observed: Mr. and Mrs. Cranky Pants'
problem has never been the color of their skin. It's the thinness.” (1/28/2012)
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49099
“Romney is now the only remaining candidate
for president who opposes amnesty for illegals …
Romney supports E-Verify and a fence on the border … Just last year, Gingrich
went on ‘Meet the Press’ and called Ryan's plan -- supported by nearly every
House Republican – ‘right-wing social engineering.’ He apologized for those
remarks, then took back his apology, still later doubled down, calling the Ryan
plan ‘suicide,’ and now -- currently, but it could change any minute --
Gingrich supports Ryan's entitlement reform efforts … Romney could not be more
forceful in saying he will issue a 50-state waiver to Obamacare
his first day in office and then seek its formal repeal … Romney is the most
electable candidate … precisely because
he is the most conservative candidate ... Hotheaded arrogance is neither
conservative nor attractive to voters.” (1/23/2012)
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49068
“In life, there are occasionally moments of
great clarity. Sure enough, in the past couple of weeks there was a defining
moment that patently identified who truly represents Republican principles and
who are just impostors. Ironically, the pretenders turned out to be the
supposed conservatives in the race for the Republican nomination for President,
and the candidate who stands for the most fundamental principles of the capitalist
system is the one accused of being squishy … [Gingrich and Perry] used
pejorative terms – such as ‘vulture capitalism’ – to describe the investment
activities of Romney and his crew. What Gingrich and Perry have proven is that
they will readily abandon our most important values for the sake of personal
gain … Mr. Gingrich’s delusion is so deeply embedded that he actually believes
that the company he formed to influence government spending (glad-handing) was
equivalent to free enterprise. This is exactly why the Tea Party began – they
were sick of Republicans acting like Democrats … The left, given voice through
the mainstream media, question the values of capitalism. They advocate the
expansion of our society’s safety net not just for the truly impaired, but for
the morally challenged. They believe that government should choose winners and
losers; much like Obama did by crushing the
shareholders, bondholders, and owners of dealerships at GM to reward his
favored constituency – the unions. Or they rejoice in ‘investing’ government
dollars in ‘green energy’ companies like Solyndra
because it’s the ‘right thing to do’ – despite the fact that no one risking
their own money would ever dream of funding these projects … Gingrich and Perry
have finally brought clarity to this election. They have drawn a bright line
for Republicans ... Who knew that Romney would turn out to be the true
conservative in the race? We now know what this election is going to be about:
We’re going to put capitalism on trial. Romney will be running as the
capitalist. Obama will be the cradle-to-grave
government guy ... But God forbid for the future of this country and the free
world if Romney and capitalism do not win.” (1/23/2012)
http://townhall.com/columnists/brucebialosky/2012/01/23/dead_to_me/page/full/
“Mitt Romney has spent more than 20 years in
private enterprise, making thousands of business decisions affecting hundreds
of companies that led to more than 100,000 new jobs and billions of dollars for
employees and investors. So you can see why the left despises him … It is
beyond journalistic malpractice for media outlets showcasing the bitter and
lying Johnson to neglect to mention that he was the union president who led the
strike that forced Ampad to close the plant … I don't
know how Mitt Romney is supposed to explain free market capitalism to career
politicians … Henceforth, I shall refer you back to the Ampad
example -- their smoking gun -- which, as we have seen, is not even a water
pistol.” (1/18/2012)
“In no way is Mitt Romney the wealthy
predatory Wall Street capitalist that critics have painted him out to be, but
that won't stop the Obama Administration from
attempting to do so in the pivotal final days of the election. President Obama's record is abysmal. Bain Capital has many successes
to tout, but President Obama's investment company,
the U.S. federal treasury, has wasted trillions on a floundering Fannie and
Freddie, Solyndra, and other losers ‘too big to
fail.’ The President's only chance of reelection is to destroy any candidate he
faces. Instead of a last-minute defense, Mitt Romney will now have the time to
make his case to Americans with facts and examples about how free enterprise
works.” (1/16/12)
“The rate of unemployment was 7.8 percent
when you took office, and look how much money you have spent since then trying
to improve it. Remember that before you took office our deficit was about $400
billion. Now it's well over a trillion -- $1.5 trillion, more or less, and the
national debt totals $15 trillion. Can you even begin to count to 15 trillion,
much less deal with that number? Moreover, as of December there were 6 million
fewer jobs than there were in December 2007. You know, when the younger George
Bush was president … In Illinois, your home state, the unemployment rate stands
at 10 percent. In Nevada, it is 13 percent. And California, the Bluest of the
Blue, it is at 11.3 percent … Republicans need to take a good look at these
numbers and run against them, not against each other, and if they do they will
win. Remember, it really is the economy, stupid, and when that's faltering
nothing else matters. Oh! And let's not forget that unemployment in the black
community is at a whopping 15.8 percent -- that is a full point higher than
when you took office. Do you expect that black voters will ignore the damage
you've done to the economy and to them?” (1/12/12)
http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelreagan/2012/01/12/some_inconvenient_facts
Mitt Romney – “Today, we are faced with the
disappointing record of a failed President. The last three years have held a
lot of change, but they haven’t offered much hope. The middle class has been
crushed. Nearly 24 million of our fellow Americans are still out of work,
struggling to find work, or have just stopped looking. The median income has
dropped 10% in four years. Soldiers returning from the front lines are waiting
in unemployment lines. Our debt is too high and our opportunities too few …
President Obama wants to put free enterprise on
trial. In the last few days, we have seen some desperate Republicans join
forces with him. This is such a mistake for our Party and for our nation … Make
no mistake, in this campaign, I will offer the American ideals of economic
freedom a clear and unapologetic defense … He raised the national debt. I will
cut, cap, and balance the budget. He enacted job-killing regulations; I’ll
eliminate them. He lost our AAA credit rating; I’ll restore it. He passed Obamacare; I’ll repeal it … He chastises friends like
Israel; I’ll stand with our friends. He apologizes for America; I will never
apologize for the greatest nation in the history of the Earth. Our plans
protect freedom and opportunity, and our blueprint is the Constitution of the
United States.” (1/11/12)
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/romney-victory-speech-text/2012/01/10/id/423735
“Could Paul have possibly found a more
offensive and less accurate description to use? And to think that he made this
statement on the state-run TV network of Iran, a country whose leaders deny the
Holocaust and call for the annihilation of Israel. And could Paul have painted
a more false picture of the realities surrounding Israel’s
attack on Hamas in Gaza … explained that he wanted to say, ‘Well, you know,
I think the Palestinians have been ripped off and therefore all the blame is on
Israel.’ But if he said those words, which reflected his ‘personal opinion,’ he
would have ‘sort of stepped in a little more than I wanted to.’” (1/11/12)
http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/01/09/ron_paul_and_israel/page/full/
“When questions arise about your church, tell
us … your church informs your understanding of why our society must uphold the
dignity of every human individual; it teaches you about the profound importance
of human liberty … and it affirms to the world that marriage is good for
society. Try to convey that, while our theological differences are real, our
values are more universal and uniting … To those who would prefer to bash
Romney’s church rather than seriously considering who should be our next
President, I would ask this: have you scrutinized President Obama’s
theological affiliations the way you’ve scrutinized Mormonism … President Obama has been steeped in a theological worldview that
essentially takes the economic and ‘class struggle’ teachings of Karl Marx, and
superimposes Bible verses over it. It preaches that successful people are
oppressors who need to be conquered, and that the ‘oppressed’ should live off
of other people’s largesse ... the Mormon Church movement is an American-born
religious movement, and teaches that freedom is something that is sacred and to
be safe-guarded … President Obama’s liberation
theology, on the other hand, is at war with Western values. It teaches that
freedom is inherently problematic (it inevitably leads to a society of oppressors
and victims), and only through the power of government control can the evils of
a free society be corrected. I’d be delighted to see Mormonism replace the
Marxism that presently inhabits the White House.” (1/3/12)
“An independent voter friend of mine told me
that we need Romney as President because after the Bush-Obama
years, America wants a leader who can bring the country together, and start to
address the overwhelming fiscal mess – not to mention potential international
threats – that we currently face. But that doesn’t mean that Romney will become
President by compromising our principles. It means that because he will enjoy
rock-solid support from both Republicans and Independents, he will be able to
secure the assistance of sensible Democrats in order to accomplish our goals.
He will repeal Obamacare and replace it with
thoughtful improvements to our health care system. He will radically alter
Dodd-Frank to ensure stability for our financial system – something he actually
understands. He will put a leash on the EPA and balance the benefits of a
healthy environment with our need for jobs. And he will move the country toward
an American-based energy strategy that replaces our current anti-American
policies that are driven by whimsy, daydreams, and junk science. There is no
one who wants to win this election more than I do and I am not interested in
sacrificing Republican goals to win. When Mitt gets on stage with Obama, Americans will see a well-spoken, smart, and likable
person with whom they will feel comfortable. Mitt is the right man; now let’s
go about voting him the nomination.” (1/3/12)
http://townhall.com/columnists/brucebialosky/2012/01/02/start_the_year_rightnominate_mitt/page/full/
“Mitt Romney has now jumped to his biggest
lead ever over President Obama in a hypothetical
Election 2012 matchup. It’s also the biggest lead a named Republican candidate
has held over the incumbent in Rasmussen Reports surveying to date. The latest
national telephone survey finds that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the former
Massachusetts governor, while 39% prefer the president.” (12/29/11)
“But already there's talk of third party
campaigns if certain candidates' egos get bruised by voter rejection in the
primary season. All of us who are committed to the defeat of Barack Obama cannot let this
happen. Candidates for the Republican nomination for President must pledge now
to support the nominee chosen by the voters in upcoming primary elections.
Failure to take the pledge should be a factor when Republican primary voters
make their choice. A second term for Obama would do
unthinkable harm to this country … Our incumbent president faces the voters
having in just three years championed policies that more than doubled the
annual federal deficit, added more than $4 trillion to the government's debt,
nearly doubled the unemployment rate, and doubled the price of gasoline. Based
on this record of accomplishment, Obama went on 60 Minutes
to claim with a straight face that he is the fourth best President in American
history … I'm worried about a third party Ron Paul campaign re-electing Barack Obama … What part of ‘Vote
for Perot, Elect Clinton’ do you not understand? I've been down this road
before. In 1992. I supported Perot. I was wrong. I won't
get fooled again. Any of the declared candidates for the Republican nomination
are preferable to Obama. The choice of Republican
voters in the coming primary season should be honored. Ron Paul and all
the aspiring presidential hopefuls should pledge to support the nominee.” (12/24/11)
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48341
“We want someone who will talk softly and
unthreateningly while implementing vital policy changes. Even when Gingrich
doesn't completely back off conservative positions, his nutty rhetoric
undermines the ability of Republicans to get anything done. By the time of the
1996 Republican National Convention, Gingrich was so widely reviled that the
Democrats' main campaign strategy against all Republican candidates for office
was to link them with Gingrich … After Gingrich had been speaker for a brief
two years, the Republican House voted 395-28 to reprimand him and fine him
$300,000 for ethics violations … It's true that Newt has had some good ideas --
but also boatloads of bad ones, such as his support for experimentation on
human embryos, cap and trade, policies to combat imaginary man-made global
warming, an individual health insurance mandate, Dede
Scozzafava (Romney supported the tea party
candidate), amnesty for illegal aliens, Al Gore's bill to establish an ‘Office
of Critical Trends Analysis’ to prepare government reports on ‘alternative
futures’ (co-sponsored by Gingrich), and thinking he could get away with taking
$1.6 million from Freddie Mac without anyone noticing.” (12/15/11)
“The mainstream media keep pushing
alternatives to Mitt Romney not only because they are terrified of
running against him, but also because they want to keep Republicans fighting …
Meanwhile, everyone knows the nominee is going to be Romney … Most important,
Romney has said -- forcefully and repeatedly -- that his first day in office he
will issue a 50-state waiver from Obamacare and will
then seek a formal repeal … If a Republican does not win, however, it will
never be repealed … Instead of sitting on our thumbs, wishing Ronald Reagan
were around, or chasing the latest mechanical rabbit flashed by the media,
conservatives ought to start rallying around Romney as the only Republican who
has a shot at beating Obama … It's fun to be a
purist, but let's put that on hold until Obama and
his abominable health care plan are gone, please.” (11/16/11)
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47570
“While I applaud Governor Rick Perry's
efforts to radically reform the tax code, his proposals for a flat tax will not
lead to the needed simplicity, and most importantly will lower tax revenues dramatically
while doing nothing to curtail out of control government spending. In other
words, he will blow another enormous hole in an already dangerously unbalanced
budget. Knowing this, the governor's pledge to balance the budget down the road
should be seen as a pure fantasy.” (10/27/11)
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/peterschiff/2011/10/27/perrys_pure_fantasy
“Mr. Cain's 9-9-9 plan was designed to be
what economists call ‘static revenue neutral,’ which means that if people
didn't change what they do under his plan, total tax revenues would be the same
as they are under our current tax code. I believe his plan would indeed be
static revenue neutral, and with the boost it would give to economic growth it
would bring in even more revenue than expected … Still, a number of my fellow
economists don't like the retail sales component of the 9-9-9 plan. They argue
that, once in place, the retail rate could be raised to the moon. They are
correct, but what they miss is that any
tax could be instituted in the future at a higher rate. If I could figure a way
to stop future Congresses from ever raising taxes I'd do it every day of the
week and twice on Sunday.” (10/25/11)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204346104576637310315367804.html
“Obama apparently
has no plays in his playbook other than to call for more government
intervention and further blame his predecessor. He believes economic growth can
only be rekindled through government intervention at the direction of his band
of central planners … Reasonable people, unshackled by the poisonous
class-warfare mentality that has Obama imprisoned in
a no-growth straitjacket, realize that we have to decrease government
regulations and cut taxes if we want to rejuvenate the economy … Obama must declare a cease-fire in his war on business and
the private sector and abandon his pursuit of environmental nirvana. If he and
the ruling class would finally … cut nonmilitary discretionary spending and
income tax rates, implement structural entitlement reform, and eliminate
onerous government regulations, we would see an immediate and profound
reduction in the crippling anxiety that envelops this nation over our uncertain
future.” (6/18/11)
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44170
“Presidential contender and former
Godfather’s Pizza executive Herman Cain was clear and concise when addressing
his views on homosexuality ... took a socially conservative hard-line stance on
sexual orientation in an interview with CBS News. ‘I believe homosexuality
is a sin because I’m a Bible-believing Christian, I believe it’s a sin,’ Cain
said, adding, ‘I believe it is a choice.’ On the flip side, earlier this week
we covered former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and his cautiousness when
discussing his faith and the Mormon Church’s stance on gay marriage and
homosexuality.” (6/10/11)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/herman-cain-homosexuality-is-a-sin-and-a-choice/
“But already two of the best-known candidates
seem bent on ruling themselves out of contention. One is Newt Gingrich. He's
being denounced for his comments on House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's
Medicare plan … Ryan's Medicare plan was part of the budget resolution that all
Republicans but four voted for in the House. It is for all practical purposes
the platform of the Republican Party. And Gingrich seemed to trash it … So a
former Republican speaker of the House who wants to become a Republican
president has just given Democrats a warrant to label a major Republican
proposal ‘right-wing social engineering’ and ‘radical change from the right.’
It's not hard to see why Russell Fuhrman, an Iowa Republican who happened to
run into Gingrich in Dubuque, said: ‘You're an embarrassment to our party. Why
don't you get out before you make a bigger fool of yourself” … Congressional Republicans have almost
unanimously supported repeal of the Obamacare bill
jammed through Congress in March 2010 with a mandate, modeled on the one in
Massachusetts, requiring everyone to buy health insurance. Twenty-seven state
attorneys general or governors, almost all Republicans, are bringing lawsuits
arguing that the Obamacare mandate violates the Constitution.
Romney delivered a health care speech last week in Michigan defending his
Massachusetts plan and insisting that a state mandate is a different kind of
duck from a federal mandate.” (5/19/11) http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/2011/05/19/gingrich_and_romney_run_against_their_own_party/page/full/
“Just weeks ago, Cain won the straw poll at the
tea party American Policy Summit in Phoenix, easily beating big names like Ron
Paul, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty
and Mitt Romney. However, Cain has been popular with the tea party since it's
beginning and gave his first speech to the grassroots movement on April 15,
2009 … Cain was nothing less than confident in his ability to take on Barack
Obama, saying he would expose Obama's weaknesses and vulnerabilities immediatly in a debate, especially if the President doesn't
have his teleprompter handy. Cain said he would attack him first and foremost
on his economic policies, exposing everything from the lack of job creation to
spending and entitlement reform ... Cain also had strong opinions about ObamaCare, or what he calls, the health care deform bill. ‘ObamaCare is a disaster,’ he said. ‘I don't believe we can
fix ObamaCare. We must repeal it and replace
it.’" (3/15/11)
“Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., has again
demonstrated her extraordinary leadership in the U.S. House. She discovered
$105 billion of taxpayers' money that Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi had hidden
in ObamaCare … Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., likened ObamaCare to a 2,700-page haystack in which a lot of
needles are still being discovered ... The Pelosi bunch's strategy was devious
and highhanded. They bypassed the customary appropriations process … Congress,
in its constitutional role, can completely stop this secret funding of
discretionary funds … It is an insult to the U.S. Constitution, which gives the
House the power to originate all revenue bills, and to current and future
Congresses, for ObamaCare to try to handcuff Congress
in regard to future appropriations up through 2019. We are fortunate that
Bachmann is smart enough to figure out the cost of the secret money in ObamaCare. One of the smartest members of Congess, she was a tax attorney before being elected to
Congress.” (3/15/11)
“In a Facebook
posting on Tuesday evening titled ‘The $4-Per-Gallon President,’ former Alaska
governor and potential 2012 presidential candidate Sarah Palin
added to the chorus and took the lead … Palin called the Obama adminstration’s actions, or lack thereof, ‘his war on
domestic oil and gas exploration’ that has ‘caused us pain at the pump,
endangered our already sluggish economic recovery, and threatened our national
security.’ She cited three ‘exhibits’ … Finally, Palin
wrote that ‘hitting the American people with higher gas prices like this is
essentially a hidden tax and a transfer of wealth’ and because ‘energy is
connected to everything in our economy, access to affordable and secure energy
is key to economic growth, which in turn is key to job growth.’ Palin concluded that Obama was
‘purposely weakening that building block and weakening our country’’’ (3/16/11)
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42331