We must vote for those candidates of any party that reflect these values: hard work, self-determination, smaller government, fiscal responsibility and honesty. Look to the character of anyone you chose to support. Their past does matter if they haven't learned from it. Their personal life is as relevant as their public one. We must be able to trust those who will be advising and leading us on what our country must do next. -Glenn Beck

Wednesday, October 24, 2012


Which is worse:  Flip-flopping or Hypocrisy?

Obama Says to Look at "Videotape" For His Flip-Flops

When Romney changes his position on an issue, it's a "flip-flop".  When Obama changes his position on an issue, he's simply "evolving".

What would scare me infinitely more than a politician changing his/her mind based on new information would be a politician that sticks to a position in spite of new information or a change of heart because it's the politically expedient thing to do.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

President Obama's "Apology Tour"

Mitt Romney has repeatedly made reference to Pres. Obama's "Apology Tour".

FactCheck.org has repeatedly "debunked" this accusation.  They say:

"Our fact-checking colleagues at PolitiFact and the Washington Post Fact Checker both pored over those speeches, and others, and wrote detailed analyses of the content of Obama’s words. Their conclusion: Obama never apologized.  We’ve read through the speeches as well. We’ve come to the same conclusion: Nowhere did we see that the president 'apologized' for America."

It is this type of "fact-checking" that makes the fact checkers lose credibility.  They did the same thing in claiming that President Obama called the attack in Libya an "act of terror" because he said the words "acts of terror" in his speech the day after the attacks.  The fact checking focuses on semantics instead of focusing on the message.

Let's say that I get into an argument with a friend and relations are strained.  And then I call up the friend and I say:

"Look, I really messed up.  I'm a complete jerk.  I know I made you feel bad, and I shouldn't have done that.  You've always been so great to me, and I just wasn't myself the other day.  Can we be friends again?"

Did I apologize?

According to FactCheck.org and others, the answer is:  No.  Because I never used the words "sorry" or "apologize".

Mitt Romney stated it perfectly last night in the debate:

"And then the president began what I’ve called an apology tour of going to — to various nations in the Middle East and — and criticizing America."

Romney never said that Pres. Obama told the other nations "sorry".  He said that he went on an "apology tour", going to various nations in the Middle East and criticizing America.  WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT HE DID!

So you can be the judge.  Here are excerpts, in Obama's own words, from speeches he gave on this tour of nations:

He did not, in fact, say the words "sorry" or "apologize".  But his intention seems clear.  Just like his "Rich People = Bad, Poor People = Good" philosophy, this is a "U.S. prior to his taking over the presidency = Bad, U.S after taking over his presidency = Good".  The view that America has done it wrong (i.e. Slavery, Segregation, Overthrowing Dictators, etc.) has shaped who he is.  It is is core.  He is in the Presidency to balance out fix the wrongs that have been done in the past.

Michelle slipped and said: "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country."  It is who they are.  This is their core belief.  The United States is a nation that needs to be fixed.

Conservatives believe that the United States has nothing to apologize to any nation for, because the United States has done more good for the world than any other nation in the history of the world.

When the subject of foreign aid to Pakistan came up in the debate last night, I thought, We give foreign aid to Pakistan?  $20 BILLION in the last decade it turns out.  We do that all around the world.  When there is a disaster anywhere in the world, the U.S. is immediately there with resources.  Wherever there are oppressed nations or people, the U.S. steps in and fights for freedom.  The U.S. has not only protected ourselves from terrorism, but we have in turn protected the world from terrorism.    The U.S. uses its military superiority to maintain peace and balance in the world.  And on and on.

To take a tour of other nations, bowing to foreign leaders, and criticizing the United States on foreign soil is unacceptable.  I hope when Romney gets into office, he goes on an "apology tour" here at home.  I hope he apologizes to American citizens for our President flying to other nations and criticizing the U.S..  I hope he apologizes for the President of the United States making regular appearances on late night talk shows like any other celebrity (which no other sitting President had done prior to Pres. Obama.)  I hope he apologizes for the $1 trillion stimulus of taxpayer money which was squandered on ventures like the Chevy Volt and Solyndra and "Cash for Clunkers" and many other projects like them.

And he can apologize for Pres. Obama initially sympathizing with the Muslim nations in the attack and killing of U.S. citizens over a YouTube video.

If there is anything Pres. Obama needs to be apologizing for, it is the last four years.

Friday, October 19, 2012

A Significant Endorsement from a Lifelong Democrat

Lee Iaccoca, an amazing businessman and a lifelong Democrat, just endorsed Mitt Romney:

Lee Iacocca Endorses Romney for President

In my opinion, this is a very significant endorsement.


I read Lee Iacocca's autobiography a few years back, and he is an impressive businessman that had a very impressive career.  He is known to be the father of the Ford Mustang.  He was on the team that thought up and designed the Mustang, along with a number of other very successful sellers for Ford.

He was eventually named the President of Ford Motor Company, where he had a lot of success.  But he did not get along well with the owner, Henry Ford II.  In 1978, he was blindsided as Henry Ford II fired him after posting a $2 billion profit.

At the time, Chrysler was on the verge of going out of business, losing millions and millions of dollars.  They brought Iacocca in to turn the company around.  He immediately went to work and made many changes, cutting costs and slashing the lines that were unprofitable and introducing new designs that he felt would be profitable.

But he realized that Chrysler simply needed more capital if they were going to survive long enough to make a recovery.  Banks weren't willing to loan him the kinds of funds he would need to turn the company around.  So in an unprecedented move for a car company, Lee Iacocca went before Congress in 1979 to ask the U.S. Government to $1.5 billion in loan guarantees so that he could get the capital he needed.  There was a lot of controversy, but the government finally relented and guaranteed the loans for Chrysler.

Iacocca took the capital and created a line of "K-Cars", like the Dodge Aries and the Chrysler LeBaron.  They also introduced the first minivans, like the Dodge Caravan.  My family actually owned two of those cars in the 80s:  a Dodge Aries station wagon, and the Dodge Colt Vista.  But so did basically everybody else.  Chrysler manufactured what the public wanted, and sales went through the roof.

The loan was to be paid off in 10 years.  Chrysler paid it off in three.  And the US government made $350 million on the deal.


Liberals will try to compare that bailout to the bailouts of Chrysler and GM in 2009 to justify why the bailouts were okay.  There are a number of critical differences between the two.  Here are a few:

1.  Iacocca was heading up a major overhaul of Chrysler.  He was rebuilding the company from the ground up.  Employees were laid off.  Entire divisions were sold off.  He wasn't receiving money to continue business as usual.

2.  Iacocca did not ask the government for a handout.  He didn't even ask the government for a loan.  He asked the government to guarantee the loans so that he could get the money.  There is a difference.  Iacocca was able to use the U.S. Government as a co-signer, and he went to work getting the money.

3.  Iacocca went to the government for the loan guarantee.  In the case of the recent auto bailouts, it was President Obama going to the auto companies and saying, "We have money... Who wants some?"  Ford was initially involved, but pulled out when they realized they would give up control.  They are now the most profitable U.S. Automaker out of the three.

4.  The government did not seek control with Iacocca.  Is there anything that the government does efficiently?  Look at the postal service, who this week hit their $15 billion borrowing limit.  Yet the government wanted control at Chrysler and GM.  They strong-armed GM into producing the Chevy Volt, which has absolutely killed GM, and now we see stories like this.

5.  The loan that the government made to Chrysler and Iacocca was PROFITABLE.  $350 million in 1983 dollars.  If the government would let GM buy up the rest of the stock (which GM wants to do, but the government won't allow), the U.S. taxpayers would LOSE around $25 billion on the deal.


There are others, but the reason I think this endorsement is so significant is that Lee Iacocca knows the auto industry.  He knows about government loans and turning car companies around.  He spent his career in the auto industry, and he was very successful.

Iacocca is endorsing the guy who suggested that the best thing for GM and Chrysler would have been to let them file for bankruptcy.

Remember, he is a lifelong Democrat.  Obama has been campaigning hard in the Midwest on the idea that Romney would have let 1,000,000 workers lose their jobs when he suggested that the best course for the auto industry was bankruptcy.

Yet, here is a Democrat and as big a car guy as exists on this earth, endorsing the guy who actually had a viable plan for turning those companies around.  He knows his stuff.

Significant endorsement indeed.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

No Bias Here (Wink, Wink)

It is amazing that a Republican ever wins an election with the onslaught of bias in the media.

Candy "Republican Ticket Death-Wish" Crowley said that they were very aware of the clock.  Apparently not:

Obama Gets More Time

Usually in a debate format, whoever gets the first word is not allowed the last word.  But over and over again, last night, Obama was allowed to get in the last word.  When Romney tried to interject and make sure he was allocated his fair amount of time, Crowley shut him down again and again.

Crowley Interrupts Romney 28 Times, Obama Just 9

It was obvious that Crowley reveled in shutting Romney down.  But what was really interesting was the first time that Obama tried to interject.  Crowley didn't know what to do.  She had to keep up the appearance of being unbiased so she needed to shut him down as well, but this was Pres. Obama!  The man who was going to slow the rise of the oceans!  Contrary to how she was with Gov. Romney, she hesitated, and then was very apologetic to Obama.

But this is nothing new:

Bizzare Coincidence: Democrats Get More Time in All Three Debates

Obama gets 8 percent more time in the first debate.  Biden gets 3 percent more time in the VP debate.  And then Obama gets 11 percent more time in second debate.  Almost a full five minutes!

For someone who likes to talk about fairness and making sure everybody is "playing by the same rules", this should really bother Obama.  But instead, the Democrats do just like Obama was doing with Crowley last night.  He would look at her and smile as if he were saying "Look at this moron!"  Just two liberals sharing a little inside joke.  The camera didn't show Crowley, but it would have been interesting to see if there were some return smiles and winks.

Reporters Applaud Obama's Slam on Romney's Wealth

(Poor Obama... Estimated Net Worth: $10 million!)

By the way, that was a deft move by Obama to make that wisecrack as it distracted from the fact that Obama had just criticized Romney for having holdings in Chinese companies and in the Cayman Islands... when he does too!  Great point, Mitt!

But this is nothing new to Republicans, who have somehow managed, despite the bias in the mainstream media and the "47%", to pull out a win in two of the last three elections.

My favorite line of the night was when Romney replied to Pres. Obama's claim that the numbers just don't add up by simply saying, "Of course they add up."  (Then citing his time in business, in the Olympics, and as governor where the buget always balanced without fail.)

Romney was not condescending in his response, like he could have (and probably should have) been.  Here was a President who has increased the deficit with each passing year and is projected to continue to increase it at record rates, and who does not have a single ounce of experience in the business world... lecturing a man who has spent his life balancing budgets and turning profits about numbers.

I heard somebody say recently that Obama couldn't run a lemonade stand.  I thought, Well, that's going a little too far.  And then I tried to picture it in my mind.  And try as I might, I honestly could not picture Obama running a successful lemonade stand.  I could picture him shooting the breeze with the customers, and I could definitely picture him giving away all the lemonade.  I could picture him leisurely making pitchers of lemonade between rounds of golf and games of basketball.  But I could not picture him turning a profit in the lemonade business.  He has absolutely no knowledge of how business works, and that is obvious when he plans to both raise taxes on business AND create jobs.  Impossible.

Romney, on the other hand, in the first year would be franchising out lemonade stands, building/buying lemon farms, cutting costs, increasing revenues, making millions of dollars in profits... and giving 14% of it away to charity.  It's what he does!

For Obama to lecture Romney about numbers adding up is laughable.  Obama has made a life out of spending taxpayer money, from college on.  It's all he knows.  It's all he's ever done.  It's what he does!

Despite the media's efforts, the debate was still only a slight edge for Obama (46% to 39% in the CNN poll, 37% to 30% in the CBS.)  Interesting though that Romney won on which candidate seemed to be the stronger leader, which candidate answered questions more directly, and which candidate would do a better job with the economy (by a margin of 18%)!

Obama edged Romney on which candidate was more likeable, and which candidate seemed to care more about the audience members.  Awww, cute!

(I wonder if Greece's President is likeable and caring too.)

The obstacles that Mitt Romney has to overcome to win this election will just make it that much more impressive when he does.  November 6th cannot come fast enough.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Obama, Benghazi, and "Acts of Terror"

One of the most talked-about moments of the debate tonight was the line about Benghazi and Obama saying that the attack on the embassy was an "act of terror".

Obama said in the debate, "The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we were going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror..."

That is 100% FALSE.  False, false, false, false, false.

True, President Obama did use the words "acts of terror" in his speech... but he never said that the attack on the embassy in Benghazi was an act of terror.  Here is the official transcript.

Where does he say the attack in Benghazi was an act of terror?  He doesn't.  He begins by addressing the attacks and then says:

"Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts."

No mention of terrorism.  Then he goes on to talk about the "recent experience of war" and talks about all those that have died in the cause of freedom.  Then he says:

"Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.   No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

Notice the "s" on "acts of terror".  He wasn't referring to a specific act of terror.  He was referring to acts of terror generally.  (Contrast that with W, speaking within minutes after the 9/11 attacks.)

In the official statement the White House released on the same day (Sept 12th), he said:

"While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants."

Nothing about terrorism in the Official Statement released by the White House.  If Pres. Obama had called it a terrorist attack from the beginning, then why was there all the controversey in the weeks following?  Over and over again, the White House blamed the attack on the anti-Muslim video, even though they had access to surveillance video showing there was no protest!

It was obvious that they did not want to have a foreign policy mess on their hands with less than two months to go to the election, and the White House fought it for weeks, and then doubled-down as pressure mounted:

Sep 13th (two days later):  "The protests we're seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States."

Sep 18th (a week later):  "Our belief based on the information we have is it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo, and the video and the unrest in Cairo that helped -- that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere. What other factors were involved is a matter of investigation."

Sep 19th (over a week later): "Right now I'm saying we don't have evidence at this point that this was premeditated or preplanned to coincide on a -- to happen on a specific date or coincide with that anniversary."

Obama might have gotten away with it... except this fits exactly with his theme of apologizing for America and inferring that we bring these terrorist attacks on ourselves.  His first instinct is to sympathize and side with those "protesters" who murdered the American citizens!  Incredulous.

Mitt Romney was dead on in his criticism!  It was Pres. Obama who was playing politics by spinning the attack from minute one.  Redirecting blame and withholding information.  The lecture he gave to Romney about "shame on you for playing politics" made me want to throw up, knowing how he has handled the situation.

I would say I disagree with Obama's strategy in the Middle East... but I have no idea what his strategy is in the Middle East!  Libya's government was being overthrown, our missiles were being launched into the country (without Congress declaring an act of war, by the way), and Pres. Obama made no statement of his strategy or position.  It was the strangest thing I've ever seen out of a President.

There is unrest in Egypt and Yemen.  Iran is on the verge of building nuclear weapons.  Syria is a complete mess.  And we have a President who is more worried about hurting the terrorists feelings than defending ourselves against them.


Saturday, October 13, 2012

Romney's "Lack of Details"

I have to say that I am impressed.

Romney and Ryan have done something that I do not believe I have seen in modern politics.  Time after time, they have been pressed for details on their economic plan.  In the debates, they have been pressed for details on how they plan to close the budget.  They don't give a lot of specifics.  Romney came closest by talking about possibly cutting government funding for PBS, which set the liberals on fire.

As I have thought about it, I have wondered if they are purposely keeping the programs they plan on cutting under wraps because that would just be fodder for the news media to demonize them like they attempted to do with Big Bird (until they found out "Big Bird" was part of the "1%".

But Ryan said something in the VP debate that I now realize Romney has been saying all along, but I never picked up on.  Here is the video:

Paul Ryan Pressed for Details on Tax Plan During Debate

I am amazed.  What Ryan said, in essence, was, "There are no details.  We have the frame work and the plan for what needs to be done, but we will work with Congress on how we execute that plan.  We will work out the details together."

The moderator tried to press him as if the lack of details was a bad thing, and the Huffington Post is inferring the same thing in this article.  But to me, it was one of the most refreshing things I've heard.  Romney's stock just jumped 10 points in my book.

In this world of PR and spin and letting political expediency direct decisions... Romney and Ryan present a plan with no details.  I love it.  No political fear!

It is Pres. Barack Obama who comes in with a Health Care Bill and rams it through with no bipartisan support.  It is Pres. Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership who would not even allow Republicans into talks about what was going into the bill.  Make a plan, and ram it through whether the opposition likes it or not.  That has been the Obama way.

Mitt Romney comes from the business world.  He knows that you will not get very far by ramming ideas through with no regard for the the people you lead.

Romney is going to sit down with Congress on the first day in office and say, "We need to balance this budget.  To do that, we are going to have to stimulate growth in the economy to create jobs and increase revenues, and we are going to have to cut spending.  Everybody, including Republicans, are going to make sacrifices in order to compromise.  What are everybody's ideas?"  Maybe he asks both the Republicans and the Democrats to prioritize the programs they want to keep, and then start by looking at those with the lowest priority from each side.

This is why Romney has a hard time describing his tax cuts.  Looking back on the First Presidential Debate, I realize that he was saying that he has a plan to cut taxes to stimulate growth, and he wants to close loopholes in the tax code in order to generate more revenue.  But when Pres. Obama pressed him on raising taxes on the middle, Romney promised that he will not raise taxes on the middle class, even if that means not cutting taxes for the wealthy.

He sets up the general plan, defines guidelines and limits, and allows Congress to work out the details.  If it appears that taxes are going to be raised on the middle class, then something else will have to give because that is a top priority in his plan.  He cannot say which loopholes will be closed specifically, because Congress will decide that... together.  Democrats and Republicans.

It just occurred to me that Joe Biden said a number of times last night that Republicans need to "just get out of the way."  That perfectly describes how the Obama Administration had "led" over the past 4 years.

This idea of "lack of details" is so novel in the current world of politics, I am almost speechless thinking about it.  It is one of the most refreshing concepts I've heard in a long time.  Why is nobody talking about this???

The left and the media will continue to bash Romney for the lack of details in his plan, but to me, that may be the most impressive thing about his plan!  I only hope he gets the opportunity to implement it.  We haven't seen somebody with this level of business and leadership acumen in the White House in a long time -- Maybe ever.

As someone who has studied a lot of business and management in my day, this concept is music to my ears.

I have to say that I am impressed.  Very impressed.  Well done, Mitt.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Amazing Hypocrisy

Just saw this story:

Wasserman Schultz: Wrong Statements About Libya Doesn't Mean They Were False

I just watched Stephanie Cutter, the Deputy Campaign Manager, saying essentially the same thing on CNN. They only had certain information to begin with, so they put forward what they had.  And when more information came forward, they put forward that new information.

What amazes me is that this is the same party and the same people that have accused Pres. Bush of lying and hiding intelligence because he wanted to take the nation to war in Iraq.

At the time, EVERYBODY thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (including you Democrats who are reading this, if you're being honest with yourself.)  The coalition of all of the other countries who joined in on the invasion all believed so.  He had sought weapons of mass destruction.  He had attacked his own people and surrounding nations.  He had a history of harboring and assisting terrorists.  He refused to let U.N. Inspectors in to to do their investigations, and all signs and intelligence pointed to his having and being willing to use WMDs.

Pres. Bush acted on the intelligence he had at the time, but no major stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were found after the invasion.  When Pres. Bush does it, he's a liar.  When Pres. Obama does it, he was just acting on the information he had at the time.


Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Republicans & Racism

I read this article not too long ago:

Racism Could Sway the Election

The article takes the comments of a few extreme individuals to generalize and stereotype and to further the idea that liberals are always trying to push that Republicans are somehow racist; that there will be individuals who will not vote for President Obama because he is black.  I am sure that will be the case for a few, but the general implication here is that if you don't vote for President Obama, it is because you are a racist.

And then today, I read another poll that had Obama and Romney tied at 47% of the popular vote.  But what really caught my eye was the diagram:

Most of the detail on the votes was kind of to be expected.  Males tend to vote a little more Republican.  Women tend to vote a little more Democrat.  And then it didn't surprise me that most people that defined themselves as Republican were voting for Romney, and most that are Democrat are voting for Obama.

What did surprise me was to see the number of black voters voting for Obama.  Compare the breakdown of the white voters with the breakdown of the black voters.  98% of black voters in this poll are voting for Obama!

I have news for you, Mr. Colbert King... If individuals are voting for Obama because he is black, that is equally as racist as not voting for him because he is black.  And that appears to be a lot more prevalant, statistically speaking.

The truth is that if it was Mitt Romney with President Obama's policies, and President Obama with Mitt Romney's policies, I would be voting for President Obama.  Skin color is not a factor in my vote.

If you pay attention, you'll notice that it's always liberals bringing up race.  They are the ones that are interested in specifying race on college entrance forms and job applications.  Republicans just want to treat all individuals equally.  In the case of a job application, how about give the job to the person that is best suited and most qualified for the job, regardless of race?  Why not give scholarships based on economic hardship (if that is the purpose of the scholarship) instead of race?  Discrimination against individuals who are white (or against individuals who are Mormon) is still discrimination.

Why constantly bring up skin color?  Just leave it alone.  Republicans want all individuals to succeed in an equal playing field with equal opportunity, while Democrats want equal outcomes for all.  There is a difference.

Isn't it ironic that in the 1860s, it was our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, and the Republican party who started the ball rolling by battling and literally giving their lives in many cases to free the slaves, while the Democrats battled to defend slavery and slaveowners.  To this day, Republicans are still fighting to erase discrimination based on race.

To vote against President Obama because you disagree with him is not racist.  He is a person, just like rest of us.  It just so happens that he is a person who has absolultely no understanding of how the economy works.