Posts Tagged ‘2012’

Americans have spent the last four years watching our country being taken from us.  We have a president who thinks he is above the law.  He violates the Constitution, bypasses Congress, and ignores the American people.  He’s running up our national debt at unprecedented rates.  He picks winners and losers.  He takes from the successful, hard working Americans and gives to those who sit with their hand out.  He gives our hard earned tax dollars to countries who work against us.  He hosts leaders of radical Muslim regimes in the White House, while ignoring the leaders of our closet ally countries.  He disrespects our military.  He allowed four Americans to die in Libya, without doing anything to save them, then lied to the American public, and targeted someone who had nothing to do with the attacks.

This president has the most pro-abortion record in Congress, even voting against measures to save the life of an innocent baby born in a botched abortion.  He has worked against religious freedom of Christians while promoting the religion of Islam.  He focuses on things like free contraception for women, while ignoring the fact that we have 23 million Americans who are unemployed or underemployed.  He’s doing nothing to help the victims of Hurricane Sandy, trotting off to Las Vegas on campaign stops while people on the East Coast have no homes, no heat, no gas and no food or water.

This is a pivotal election.  We cannot afford to be complacent.  That’s how we got into this mess in the first place.  We have leaders in Congress who need to be removed.  We have a president who needs his walking papers.  We need to get back to the principles this country was founded upon.  We need to take our country back.  This is the time.  If not us, who?  If not now, when?

Get out and vote.  Your country depends on it.


Read Full Post »

I regularly have conversations with Democrats who cannot successfully defend the president’s record.  In fact, they don’t even try.  It’s either an attack on Romney, usually without basis in fact, or it’s some lame excuse about Obama’s social record, if they even make that much of an effort.

I have these conversations quite frequently with one particular co-worker.  We had a very intense debate recently, which I later realized epitomizes the logic of the typical Obama voter.  I asked why he supported Obama over Romney.  His first effort was to trash Romney, for everything from not paying enough taxes to killing jobs while at Bain Capital.  I successfully debunked every charge he made against Romney, and once he ran out of ideas, he said that none of it mattered anyway, because he supported Obama’s social policies, and that was it.

So, I’m curious….is that really enough of a reason to support this president?

We’ve talked about Obama’s group of friends and associates until we’re blue in the face.  Controversial figures like Bill Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis and Reverend Wright have come up for the past 4 years, but it doesn’t seem to have any affect.  We’ve talked about Obama’s relationships with, or defense of, radical groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and the New Black Panther Party, yet supporters just don’t seem to care.   I was always taught that the people we hang around with says a lot about the person we are.  Does that not apply anymore?  Does character even matter?

We’ve pointed out Obama’s socialist/Marxist/communist philosophies.  We’ve pointed out his messages of class warfare, division and wealth distribution.  We’ve pointed out his extreme views on abortion.  It’s not enough.

What about the economy?  Growth has been virtually stagnant through Obama’s entire term.  Growth was slower this month than last month, and slower last month than the previous month.  Unemployment is still around 8%, with real unemployment closer to 15%.  Millions of Americans are underemployed.  Houses are still under water.  Gas and food prices are still up.   We’ve reached $16 trillion of debt.  Businesses are afraid to expand.  The future is uncertain.  Yet, millions of Americans still support this president.

What about health care?  Insurance rates are going up – in my case, by 50%, in other cases, by 75% or 100%.  Some companies are dropping coverage altogether.  The Affordable Care Act is anything but affordable.  Doctors are getting out of medicine.  Reimbursement rates are dropping.  The health care law is costing us over $1 trillion at this point, a number which grows consistently.  Yet, Obama’s support in this election is still around 45-47%.

So here is my question to Obama voters:  What will make you sit up and take notice?

It is $20 trillion in debt?  $30 trillion in debt?  What’s the number?

Is it 18% unemployment?  25%?

Is it $5/gallon for gas?  $10?

Is it 1 in 5 Americans on food stamps?  One in 3?  Food stamps for all?

Is it a completely decimated U.S. military?

Or are you completely satisfied with this president, economy and national defense be damned, just because he supports gay marriage and free birth control?

Read Full Post »

Written by Tom Tancredo


His approval rating is in the toilet. His re-election numbers are abysmal for an incumbent president at this point in his term. He has stated that he is giving up on white, working-class Americans. The economy, regardless of how he tries to talk it up, is lethargic at best. His “foreign policy” consists of repeating the line “(fill in name of country) is one of our best allies and punches above its weight.” Independents are deserting him in droves.

Obamacare is still unpopular, and his numbers will fall even further after it is declared unconstitutional. Of course, the Obama attack machine (campaign and left-wing media) will immediately go to town after the Supreme Court announces its decision and try to whip up the base with frightening rants about the end of Roe v. Wade being just one vote away. Even if this ploy works, independents will not be pulled over to his side in big enough numbers to stop the slide. The Catholic Church has taken off the gloves over BO’s attempt to force them to provide insurance that includes coverage for abortion-inducing drugs. They are attacking him from the pulpit and with a television commercial that is as hard-hitting as anything produced by James Carville.

Continue reading….

Read Full Post »

What in the world is happening to this country?  What happened to Obama’s message of Hope and Change??  Granted, many of us never bought into the whole “hopey-changey” concept, but at least it sounded good to the scores of willfully ignorant voters.  But, somehow, over the past 3 years, Obama’s feel-good message, however phony, has been downgraded to just a moderate house and no bankruptcy due to medical bills.  What gives??

Here is Obama’s new message…

“If you’re willing to put in the work, the idea is that you should be able to raise a family and own a home; not go bankrupt because you got sick, because you’ve got some health insurance that helps you deal with those difficult times; that you can send your kids to college; that you can put some money away for retirement,” Obama said recently in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

“That’s all most people want,” he said. “Folks don’t have unrealistic ambitions. They do believe that if they work hard they should be able to achieve that small measure of an American Dream.”

Is this really what Obama thinks the average American wants???  Or is this yet another example of the “dumbing down” of America?  Clearly, he’s well aware of the situation we’re in.  He should be aware…he’s created it.  He took a bad economy and made it exponentially worse.  So what’s the solution?  Lower the bar!  It all makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?  If Americans feel satisfied with just the bare minimum, Obama’s done his job, right?  Quite frankly, I find this sickening.

So, how has the media reacted to Obama’s pathetic description of the American dream?  They’re outraged, right?  Uh, no.  In fact, they’ve appeared to have embraced it, and once again, made excuses for him.  Here’s the headline from the Washington Post: This time not so lofty:  Obama peddles modest American dream as he seeks re-election.  Say what?  Keep reading….it gets better:

This time around, President Barack Obama’s message can sound decidedly down-to-earth.

Four years after winning the White House, Obama is dealing with a different economic and political reality as he seeks re-election. He’s focused less on a lofty vision for overcoming divisions and remaking Washington, and more on the most basic building blocks of middle-class economic security: a job, a house, a college education for the kids, health care, money for retirement.

The goals can seem almost humdrum in comparison with some of the rhetoric from Obama’s 2008 White House campaign. But the message sounds made for the times, with the country emerging haltingly from recession, the income gap widening and unemployment stuck above 8 percent. At the White House Tuesday Obama said, “We want to build an economy where every American has a chance to find a good job that pays well and supports a family.”

Down-to-earth?  Made for the times?  Are you kidding me?  What ever happened to encouraging lofty ambitions?  What ever happened to the president telling Americans they can achieve anything?  Is this really the message we want to send to our children?   If they go to school for 12 years, then college for 4, then work for another 60 years, they might just be able to own an 800 s.f. home, drive a crappy Prius and retire just in time to kick the bucket?  AWESOME!

Why is any American even considering re-electing this man?  I have never seen any president in this country make such an effort to bring Americans down.  I thought his job was to lift America up.  This, my friends, is the behavior of a president who thinks this country is arrogant and needs to be brought down a peg or two.  This is the behavior of a president who is embarrassed by our strength and success.  This is the behavior of a president with a “Blame America First” philosophy.  And this….is a president who needs to be defeated in 2012.

Read Full Post »

A State of the Union address is often difficult to fact check, no matter who is president. The speech is a product of many hands and is carefully vetted, so major errors of fact are so relatively rare that they sometimes can become big news (think of George W. Bush’s “sixteen little words” about Iraq seeking uranium in Niger). At the same time, State of the Union addresses are very political speeches, an argument for the president’s policies, so context (or the perspective of opponents) is often missing.

Here is a guide through some of President Obama’s more fact-challenged claims, in the order in which he made them. As is our practice with live events, we do not award Pinocchio rankings, which are reserved for complete columns.

“For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.”

The killing of bin Laden, which Obama used to open and close his speech, is an achievement that few partisans would quibble with. But the story about Iraq and Afghanistan is much more muddled.

Yes, U.S. troops have left Iraq, in part because the Obama administration was unwilling or unable — take your pick — to extend a security agreement with Iraq. Since the U.S. departure, Iraq has descended into violence as the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has targeted Sunni opposition figures. The country at times appears to teeter on the edge of a new outbreak of sectarian violence.  Read more….

Read Full Post »

President Obama is full swing into campaign mode….not that he ever left…and the contributions have been coming in fast and furious.  Oops…did I just say Fast and Furious?  Freudian slip?  But I digress…

Obama’s most recent fundraiser was at the private home of filmmaker Spike Lee, with invites going for $35,800 per plate.  During both of Obama’s campaigns, we have heard a lot about his massive contributions from various bundlers, fundraisers who bring in anywhere from $50,000 to $500,000 from multiple contributors, and we are all aware of the claims of crony capitalism associated with the current administration.

Now, the Center for Public Integrity, a non-partisan group, has come out with some interesting facts regarding this very subject.  According to their studies, 68 out of the 350 bundlers, or their spouses, have received appointments within the White House administration.  In addition, 250 of those same 350 bundlers have been invited to various White House events, some to multiple events, and others who visit on a regular basis.  That’s a pretty staggering number.  There are also reports that 30 of the 2012 bundlers have ties to companies that either already work with federal agencies or hope to do so.  Read the full story here

So, is this the appropriate behavior from a president who promised to do away with the special interests in Washington?  Who promised to change the politics in Washington?  Who promised hope and change and a unified America?  I think not.  But it’s par for the course with this current president.  Wasn’t he the one who talked about rewarding friends and punishing enemies?  He clearly rewards his friends, such as the unions, who give approximately 90% of their political contributions to Democrats.  A large percentage of the waivers from Obamacare have been given to unionized companies and other administration allies.  He clearly punishes his enemies, like Right to Work states, such as South Carolina, with the Boeing contract, and Tennessee, with Gibson Guitars.  His Justice Department also goes after states like Arizona and Alabama, for trying to enforce illegal immigration laws, laws that were written by these states, because the federal government is not getting the job done.  These examples are just a drop in the bucket.  This is consistent behavior by the current administration, the man who claims to have the most transparent administration in history.

Where is the public outrage?  Where is the media?  Ah yes, they’re too busy protecting the president, smearing the tea party, and speaking to ex-wives of Republican presidential candidates.

Read Full Post »

The 10th 2012 presidential debate was held last night, in Las Vegas, Nevada.  This was probably the most “fiesty” debate of the season, which is exactly what the CNN moderator, Anderson Cooper, was looking for.  As we’ve seen with the liberal moderators in several of the prior debates, Cooper presented questions designed in such a way to encourage the candidates to go after each other, instead of Obama, and that’s exactly what the audience got last night.

For the first time, Rick Perry actually had a little fight in him.  While I supported Perry getting into the race, fully expecting him to “wow” me in the debates, I have been quite disappointed in his performance.  Last night, he showed a little more fire, but I still can’t say I was impressed.  The juvenile exchange between Perry and Romney probably didn’t score him any points.  He was actually booed by the audience on more than one occasion.  While I agree with his energy plan, and he was strong on the border issue last night, he’s going to have to do more to win back his supporters.  He may be a strong campaigner and fundraiser, but his lackluster performance in the previous debates may have done irreparable damage.

Herman Cain was able to withstand the extensive questioning and criticism of his 9-9-9 plan.  Some in the liberal media said he lost the debate, when he failed to effectively explain how the middle class will NOT be paying more taxes under his plan.  I don’t agree that he lost the debate.  I do, however, think he missed an opportunity to sell his plan by giving a more detailed description of how it works, and reminding people that this will eliminate the payroll taxes.  It came across, not as a replacement tax, but as an additional tax, as they would be paying a state sales tax AND a national sales tax.

I have to applaud Gingrich.  He refused to take the bait and trash the other candidates.  He handled his questions in a very classy way, and he reminded the others that they need to remain focused on Obama, instead of going after each other.  While he made the point that Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would be a very tough sell in Washington, he also gave Cain a lot of credit for coming up with a new, bold plan, and giving the candidates something of substance to debate.

Governor Romney has been consistent and strong in the debates, but he seemed very agitated last night.  His comment about Perry being testy because he’s had a rough couple of debates, was totally uncalled for, and simply rude.  I, for one, have little patience for bickering and personal attacks on the stage.  On the other hand, it was kind of refreshing to see Perry and Santorum rattle Romney.

Ron Paul reminded us, yet again, why he will never be elected POTUS.  He commented that we should not give aid to Israel.  That’s all I needed to hear.  While he brings up a lot of good points, when it comes to over-reaching government and the Constitution, his foreign policy views scare me.  He doesn’t seem to care if Iran has a nuke, and he doesn’t want to support Israel with foreign aid funding.  And….we’re done.  I don’t care what else he stands for or against.

Michele Bachmann held her own last night…nothing overly impressive and nothing damaging.  That said, it will be difficult for her to regain the support she’s lost over the past several weeks.

Rick Santorum got into it with Romney on Romneycare, and got quite testy, constantly interrupting him, then telling him he was out of time.  That behavior doesn’t help anyone.  Someone noted, after the last debate, that he’s already at an “11” when he comes on to the stage.  I would agree.  He’s just waiting to pounce, and gets worked up too easily.  He’s not getting through to voters, despite having some good ideas about getting manufacturing jobs back to the U.S.

In my opinion, if anyone won this debate, which the idea of that alone is debatable, it was Speaker Gingrich.  He stayed above the fray, and I have to give him credit for that.  He’s also strong on policy, and provided clear, concise answers.  I don’t know that there was a clear cut loser last night.  For me, it was Santorum and Paul.  Santorum acted like a poor sport, and Paul is off the rails on foreign policy.  In a time with so much unrest around the world, we need a strong leader, who will defend American’s interests and lead with a “peace through strength” philosophy, as we saw in Ronald Reagan.  I don’t see any hint of that in Ron Paul.

The next debate will be held on Wednesday, November 9th, at Oakland University, and televised on CNBC.

What are your thoughts on last night’s performances?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »