Romney’s Selection of Paul Ryan for Vice President is a Gamechanger

 In chosing Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan to be his running mate, Mitt Romney has set the stage for an an ideological battle that will force our nation to undergo some deep soul searching.  By picking Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney has finally proven to conservatives that his committment to fiscal responsibility is based upon more than just platitudes and political gamesmanship and in doing so he has not only fired up the base of his Party, he has gotten the attention of voters who are yearning for leaders of substance and who are willing to provide the reforms needed to solve our problems instead of prolonging or exacerbating them.

That is the message offered to us by this first major decision of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.

By picking Paul Ryan, the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Mitt Romney has cornered the market on the most important issue facing Americans today, the economic health of our nation and made it quite clear that he is willing to provide our economy with more than just lip service.

As the House Budget Chairman, Ryan has dedicated himself to getting this nation’s economy back on track by actually addressing all the third rails in politics, including the mountain of entitlements that have brought our nation to the brink of bankruptcy.   As the architect of a budget plan that chooses to address our entitlement and spending problems, Paul Ryan has been one of the few political leaders with the fortitude and courage to address our problems honestly and realistically.     And by nominating Ryan for Vice President, Mitt Romney demonstrated the courage to recognize and acknowledge that Ryan is an asset that we must give a greater role to play in our governance.  As such, Romney’s decision to pick Ryan can probably best be described as purposeful.

Romney could have a chosen a running mate based on a number of political and electoral considerations.  He could have picked someone like Bob Portman in the hopes that Portman would have delivered the must win state of Ohio to Romney.  He could have picked someone like Condoleezza Rice with the intention of playing gender politics or Marco Rubio for the sake of a focussing on ethnic politics in an  appeal to the Hispanic vote.   There were any number of political based choices that Romney could have made in an attempt to appeal to different electoral demographics.  But Romney did not to give into such political temptation.  Instead he chose to appeal to all Americans by carefully deciding to put policy considerations over political considerations.   And it was a courageous choice.  It is no secret that Democrats will try to paint Paul Ryan as a heartless conservative whose budget plan attempts to destroy Americans by cutting everything from Social Security benefits to the elderly, to slashing assistance for the impoverished.  But Romney did not succumb to the fear of such propaganda.  Instead, by picking Paul Ryan for Vice President, Mitt Romney demonstrated the courage to confront such accusations.  In fact selecting Paul Ryan seems to signal Romney’s desire for President Obama to make such accusations so that the Romney-Ryan ticket can dispel those myths once and for all.

But beyond the courage behind Romney’s decision is also the worthiness of Paul Ryan himself.

Paul Ryan is young but experienced, confident, humble, and uses soft spoken words to convey hard hitting facts as he avoids demonizing the opposition.  He is a down-to-earth, friendly, likeable, family man, who can relate to voters and still make them feel confident in his ability to step into the presidency if the need arose.  So much so that almost exactly one year ago today, I saw fit to endorse Paul Ryan over Mitt Romney for President.  Given that small aside, you won’t hear me complaining about Romney’s choice.  It is a decision that leaves me confident in Romney’s judgment and excited by the promise of his campaign and potential presidency.

By picking Paul Ryan as his running mate, Mitt Romney neglected to make the safe choice that I feared he would make.  Instead he made a bold choice, the boldest choice of his political career and in the final analysis I believe Paul Ryan will prove to be an extraordinary choice.  Few people have the type of natural command of the budget that Ryan does. And as a protegé of conservative icon Jack Kemp, Paul Ryan is the embodiment of fiscal conservatism and today, Mitt Romney boldly embraced those principles and ensured us of a presidential campaign that will put the ideological direction of our nation at the forefront of the campaign and force us to debate the real issues, the issues that President Obama is trying to avoid.

Who Is Paul Ryan?

Born: January 29, 1970 (age 41), Janesville, Wisconsin

Spouse(s): Janna Ryan

Children : Sam, Liza & Charlie

Residence : Janesville, Wisconsin

Alma mater: Miami University, (Ohio) (BA),

Profession: Blue Collar worker, Marketing Consultant

Religion: Catholic

Political Career :

  • Intern for the foreign affairs advisor assigned to Wisconsin Sen. Bob Kasten.
  • staff economist attached to the office of U.S. Senator Bob Kasten
  • 1992 – Ryan became a speechwriter and a volunteer economic analyst with Empower America, an advocacy group formed by Jack Kemp, former education secretary Bill Bennett, the late diplomat Jeane Kirkpatrick and former Minnesota Rep. Vin Weber.
  • 1998 – Elected to Congress from his Wisconsin hometown

Photobucket

The Ryan Record:

Recent Key Votes

More Key Votes

Photobucket

Bill Sponsorship & Co-Sponsorship

Some of Ryan’s most recently sponsored bills include…

View All » (including bills from previous years)

Photobucket

Ryan on the Issues

Foreign Policy Gun Control Budget & Economy Education
Homeland Security Crime Government Reform Health Care
War & Peace Drugs Tax Reform Abortion
Free Trade Civil Rights Social Security Families & Children
Immigration Jobs Welfare & Poverty Corporations
Energy & Oil Environment Technology Principles & Values

Photobucket

Stars01.gif picture by kempite


Bookmark and Share

Where Obama Ranks For Jobs With Other Presidents

Bookmark and Share   Our beloved supreme ruler is jumping from swing state to swing state on his America’s Recovering Elect Me Tour beating his chest as he proclaims the private sector has added more than 4.5 million jobs over the last 30 months. Let’s hear it for the supreme job creator…

Hip, hip, no way!

Huh?

As usual he’s only telling part of the story. He mentions the “jobs created” number but conveniently skips the inconvenient “jobs lost” number. Sure, the private sector created 4.5 million jobs over 30 months (a pathetic monthly average, by the way) but ultimately it lost more than that. Obama has a net loss of jobs of over 300,000 during his presidential term according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

So, how bad is it?

Unemployment rose in July making it 42 consecutive months over 8%. Also, this recovery, to use the term loosely, has produced the slowest economic growth of any recovery.

“It is the slowest recovery ever,” said Veronique de Rugy, senior fellow at the Mercatus Center, who put together a new study. “I would claim that there’s really no recovery at all.”

Seriously?

Yep. And the last twelve months have seen the slowest wage growth ever, too.

It’s that bad?

It’s pimple-butt bad. Obama’s job numbers, as de Rugy points out, are far worse than Kennedy (3.6 million), Ford (2.1 million) and Carter (10.3 million) who, as Presidents, served for similar or shorter terms than our venerable supreme ruler. In fact, he ranks dead last in jobs, the bottom of the barrel, for all presidents since 1945.

Ouch.

There’s more. He says the private sector is doing fine.

Does he? Well, clearly he needs to put the fruit back in the cake.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

Bookmark and Share

In 2012 Barack Obama Is Campaigning Against All He Campaigned On In 2008

  Bookmark and Share  In 2008, Barack Obama dismissed  every question about him by calling them distractions.  Each of his speeches were carefully laced with attempts to claim his opponents were trying to distract voters from the issue of the economy.

No matter what the issue, it was a distraction.  To question his  relationship to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers was a distraction.  To question how Senator Obama could have sat in the pews of Rev. Wright’s church for decades and not once hear or denounce the reverend, anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Caucasian, race-baiting  hate speech, was a distraction.   Requesting him to produce his birth certificate was a distraction.  Even questioning whether or not Senator Obama, a young man with no executive or private sector experience had any substantial qualifications to be President of the United States were deemed to be a mean spirited, Republican distraction.  In fact in July of 2008, Senator Obama responded to such a questions by stating;

“When we get distracted by those kinds of questions, I think we do a disservice to the American people.”

This strategy prompted then Senator Obama to include in almost all his speeches, the charge that any question or discussion that did not involve the economy was an example of Republicans trying to avoid the economy as an issue altogether.

For instance, in March of 2008 candidate Obama stated;

“We knew that the closer we got to the change we seek, the more we’d see of the politics we’re trying to end — the attacks and distortions that try to distract us from the issues that matter.”

In April of 2008, it was;

“It’s easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit for tat that consumes our politics.”

In May of 2008 he declared;

” Yes, we know what’s coming. … The same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy in the hope that the media will play along.”

Then of course there was my favorite Obama distraction accusation which came in October of 2008 when the young, energetic man who was filled with so much hope and change stated;

“Sen. McCain and his operatives are gambling that he can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance. … I’m going to keep talking about the issues that matter — about the economy and health care and education and energy.”

Four years later and the question now is where is all this talk about substance that President Obama promised?

So far President Obama, his surrogates, and his team of political Chicago hitmen have spent most of their time distracting us from the very same issues he claimed to want to discuss in 2008.

While the President goes out on the campaign trail and tries to claim that his endless spending will eventually solve our problems, his strategists are busy trying to insure that the non-issues are being aired on television and radio, and by his surrogates in the Senate and House.  Instead of producing a plan to grow our economy or trying to pass at least one federal budget before his first and probably last term in office is over, the President’s campaign and his supporters have done nothing but dominate the news with false accusations and ludicrous charges against Romney that are designed to specifically distract voters from the issues and the Obama record.

So far the most substantial knocks against Mitt Romney to come out of the Obama campaign have included such charges as his wife never having worked a day in her life, that Romney is a felon, that he hasn’t paid his taxes, and that he was responsible for the death of a woman who had cancer.  And to establish all this, President Obama has officially spent more than any other presidential in history.  And the official campaign which does not really start until both Parties officially nominate their candidate hasn’t even begun yet.

After four years in office President Obama who came to the White House on the promises of “hope” and “change” has delivered on only one of those themes –change.  As for hope, he has cretaed a government run econmy that has turned into despair and although he has delivered on change, it was not the change that many had hoped he intended.

In 2008, then Senator Obama left many voters believing that he would change the partisan atmosphere in Washington, D.C..  They tended to believe him when he promised to unite our nation.   Back then many believed President Obama when he promised to have the most transparent Administration in the nation’s history.  Fast forward four years and here we are a nation that is more polarized than ever before as President Obama tries to exploit the less fortunate in our society with a mean spirited class warfare strategy that suggest to them that the most fortunate in our society are to blame for their lot in life.  Here we are with a President who has declared that Republicans are waging a war on women.  And here we are waiting for that promised transparency in government on things such as the botched Fast & Furious operation that Obama’s Attorney General has been secretive about that he became the first person in his position to be held in contempt of Congress.  Here we are waiting to find out who from the White House has been leaking sensitive national security secrets in order to boost the President’s reelection chances.

The only change the President has delivered exists in the national debt which in the less-than-three-years. President Obama increased by $4.212 trillion–more than the total national debt of about $4.1672 trillion accumulated by all 41 U.S. presidents from George Washington through George H.W. Bush combined.  And that was not a change in the direction we need or can afford.

The presidential candidate that we saw in 2008 is long gone.  He has been taken away from us through a disastrous series of economic policy failures, and a string of constitutionally questionable partisan power grabs.  From appointing dozens of unaccountable czars that were granted extra-constitutional powers without congressional oversight, to hammering together an entirely partisan healthcare bill that puts one third of the American economy under government control, and to the passage of executive orders that granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants and created unenforceable regulations, this President has taken any of the possibly promising aspects of his 2008 candidacy and threw them out the door.  And so now today, the Barack Obama that stands before us is  not the Barack Obama who asked us for our votes in 2008.

The Barack Obama before us today is a shell of the man he once was.  And whereas President Obama once stood before us and declared his opponents were about to “distract us from the issues that affect our lives by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy in the hope that the media will play along”, today he is the one responsible for those distractions and for using those same tactics.  Today we have a President who is campaigning on all that he campaigned against four years ago and who is trying to run away from his record.  So I ask you this.  Can we afford to a reelect a President who if given the chance, would have to campaign against all that he says he stands for now, in another four years?

Bookmark and Share

If Harry Reid Is Right And Romney Has Not Paid His Taxes, Where’s The IRS in All of This?

  Bookmark and Share I would like to say that this is the final word on the greatest question and issue facing Americans in this presidential election —– will Mitt Romney release the last 12 years of his tax return records?  But it won’t be.   The issue is one too rich for the class warfare waging left to let go of.  But is it really an issue?

Led by Senate Majority Liar, —- I mean Leader, Harry Reid, the issue of Romney’s tax returns have been pushed to the forefront of the 2012 election, mainly because Harry Reid claims that he knows for a fact that Romney has not paid any taxes.  According to Reid “The word is out.  Romney hasn’t not paid his taxes”.  That word only got out because Reid and other Obama surrogates have put that word out.  Reid says it comes from a very reliable source who told him that Romney has not paid his taxes.

The charge is one which under normal conditions could result in the filing of libel charges but the politically shrewd Reid understood that by making this charge from the floor of the U.S. Senate, he would be immune from prosecution because of a federal law that does not allow one to be sewed in civil court for their statements on the floor of the Senate.  Hence the reason why Harry Reid decided to exploit the august halls of Congress with campaign rhetoric.   Instead of using his time to address the problems facing the nation, he used it to carry out the dirty work of the President’s reelection campaign.

But let us examine the validity of these charges.

Over 80 years ago,  the legendary and notorious mob boss Al Capone saw his long life of corruption and murder come to an end.  But his downfall came to fruition not because our judicial system proved Capone had a hand in murder or corruption.  The end of Capone’s criminal career came about only after the Internal Revenue Service brought Capone to justice in one of most celebrated tax evasion cases in our nation’s history.   According to AccountingWeb,  not long ago, the IRS which  rarely releases documents since tax return information is considered highly confidential and is protected by strict privacy protection laws, released several documents pertaining to the prosecution of Capone under the Freedom of Information Act because of what they described as historical significance and public interest in the Capone case.

Among the documentsmade available were  a 7-page summary  that describes various criminal investigations of Capone during the ’20s and ’30s.  Each of the documents released demonstrate that the IRS was relentless in their pursuit to bring Capone to justice.  In the end, between all the illegal activities conducted by Capone and between the countless people whos death’s he was respionsible for, Capone was found guilty of five counts of tax evasion and failing to file a tax return. Despite everything else Capone did, and the endless array of law enforcement entities that pursued Capone, it took the IRS to convict him of anything.

Which brings us back to Mitt Romney.

Does anyone believe that Mitt Romney could have been a Governor and run two campaigns for President without the IRS ever noticing that he has not paid his taxes?

To think the IRS missed that or just decided to let it go is to say the least, absurd.  That is especially the case since one of the main objectives conatined in President Obama’s budget requests for the Internal Revenue Service has been an attempt to reduce the “tax gap,” between what taxpayers owe each year and what they actually pay.  Even the president’s most recent IRS budget request seeks funding increases for enforcement programs and in believing that every dollar spent on collecting revenue reaps twice as much money in return, the Obama administration even proposed to exclude some IRS enforcement spending from the budget caps imposed by 2011’s debt ceiling deal.  From day one, the Obama White House has consistently placed a focus on enforcing prompt payment of tax bills and this year the President has sought  a $402 million increase over the estimated $5.3 billion budget that the enforcement division already has.

So with all this additional spending and manpower devoted to insuring that people pay their taxes, is there any logical reason to believe that Obama’s IRS just let Mitt Romney slide and refused to prosecute him for evading taxes?  Or could it be that Romney avoided the same fate as Al Capone because unlike Capone, Romney has filed his tax returns and paid his taxes?

If Romney hasn’t paid his taxes for the past decade or more and if the IRS has not yet realized that, than we have bigger problems than Romney’s tax bill.  We have an IRS that is wasting more than $5.7 billion dollars this years, and that has wasted tens of billions over the last decade.

So the real question here is if Mitt Romney has not paid his taxes, how come all the billions of dollars spent by the enforcement division of the IRS did not catch it?   I mean it’s not like Obama’s IRS Administration looked the other way because Romney is a pal of the President.  We’re talking about Mitt Romney, a Republican who many have long known to be a potential challenger of President Obama, not an Obama ally like Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner who failed to pay his own taxes but was rewarded with his cabinet post in charge of the IRS.

The bottom line here is the Romney tax return issue is not an issue.  It is a distraction that the left is tacking on to their class warfare strategy.   If Mitt Romney has been evading taxes, I can’t help but believe that as was the case with Al Capone, someone from the IRS would have picked up on it and Romney would be sitting in prison with the likes of Bernie Madoff, a few former Chicago Governors, or someone who should be sitting in jail, New Jersey’s failed former Governor, Jon Corzine, a man who till this day still can’t figure out where he put $1.6 billion of Goldman Sach’s money.

However; some may still argue that Mitt Romney could put the entire issue to rest if he just followed his father’s example and went public with the tax returns from the past 12 years.  Normally I might agree but so far this election is far from normal.  Mitt Romney has not even been officially nominated for President and the Obama reelection team has already accused Mitt of being a felon, not paying his taxes, and even killing a woman.  What do you think  they will do with a dozen years of Romney’s personal tax returns, no matter what t hey show?

Providing the left with his tax returns would be like providing a gunman with bullets.  In their hands, Mitt Romney’s perfectly legal, personal finances would be used to generate an endless array of distortions that would be turned into distractions from the real issues as they expand their class warfare tactics in attempt to prove that Mitt Romney is a successful and wealthy entrepreneur.  But here’s a newsflash for the left.  We know Romney’s rich!  Now it’s time to deal with the issues and the Obama record that the left is desperately trying to distract us from.

What it really comes down to is that in Romney’s tax returns we will not find the answers to peace in  the Mideast, or the solutions to our skyrocketing unemployment rates.  In Romney’s returns, we will not find the cure for cancer or a way to bring down the crushing national debt that President Obama has nearly tripled.  The reality is that Mitt Romney’s tax returns have nothing to do with the future of our nation and as such they really should not be the only issue we hear our President’s campaign team talking about.  So it’s time for the left to take the advice that can be gleemed by the name of one of their biggest front groups, MoveOn.org, —–  and move on already.Bookmark and Share

Even Liberals Are Getting Disgusted With Obama’s Hypocrisy

  Bookmark and Share  If liberals are anything, they are first and foremost, hypocrites.  Liberalism is nothing more than a hypocrisy based ideology that operates under an atmosphere of double standards and an agenda that turns all issues into wedges that are designed to divide and fuel a “them against us mentality”.   This is why although you will always find the left preaching the need for tolerance, you will rarely find a liberal who is tolerant of a difference of opinion.  Yet today, even portions of the liberal base are finding that President Obama is reaching a level of hypocrisy that is too much for them to live with.

Such is the case with the CREDO organization, a liberal, pro-Obama group that practices their leftwing activism through the collection of signatures on petitions that they create for every issue they wish to reform.

CREDO recently issued a petition drive that calls upon President Obama to take down a radio ad that he has running in coal producing state’s like Ohio.  In the ad, President Obama tries to portray himself as a pro-coal President who has strengthened the American coal industry.  Now most Americans understand that the notion that President Obama has been good for any industry is ludicrous enough but to claim that he and his policies have benefited the coal industry is down right libelous.   Yet this latest radio spot doesn’t just suggest that president Obama is a supporter and fried of coal, it actually attacks Romney for remarks he made about  a Massachusetts  coal plant back in 2003.   At the time, that specific plant in Salem, Massachusetts was the oldest in the state and it failed to comply with state environmental laws. This particular plant was so egregious that according to a report by the Harvard School of Public Health, its lack of compliance with environmental regulations were  responsible for dozens of premature  deaths and 14,400 asthma attacks each year.

In his 2003 remarks, Romney stated;

“I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people. And that plant kills people….”

In a blatant attempt to intentionally take Romney’s words out of context, the Obama ad implies that Romney was claiming all coal plants “kill people” and deceptively ignored the fact that Romney was referring to that specific plant in Massachusetts which failed to comply with the regulations that would have allowed it to operate in an environmentally sound manner.

But proper context has little to do with liberal logic.

A year ago,  another liberal cesspool called Climate Progress, used the same soundbite that  Obama uses in his ad but they were taking that quote out of context for their own purposes.  Climate Progress tried to use Romney’s words to demonstrate that Romney is a compulsive flip-flopper who has changed his position on the environment.  By taking the Romney quote out of context, Climate Progress tried to convince voters that Romney was once opposed to coal but now that he is running for President, he supports coal.  Move forward a year and now we have Team Obama using the same quote to try and claim that Romney is  supposedly not being as pro-coal as the President  is.

Meanwhile CREDO has now issued a petition calling upon the President to pull the ad, not because it misinterprets Romney’s position, but because as they put it ”

…”An ad suggesting that President Obama is more coal-loving than Romney isn’t just cynical, it’s misleading… Tell the Obama campaign: Drop your cynical pro-coal ad.”

CREDO gets marks for pointing out that the ad is misleading, but only a couple of points because misleading is an understatement.  But they quickly lose those points because like the liberals at Climate Progress, CREDO tries to suggest that Romney has flip-flopped on the issue of coal and that is a lie.

Still, regardless of how inherently disingenuous the left is, even the liberal Obama loving supporters at CREDO are beginning to freak out over just how two-faced the President is.

In their petition, CREDO writes;

“…Right now we need leadership from President Obama to overturn a decision by his campaign to run radio ads in Ohio which promote coal and incredibly actually criticize Mitt Romney for saying (when he was a different person, in 2003) that the pollution from coal plants kills people….”

Note how CREDO carefully tried to avoid laying blame for the ad at the President’s feet.  Rather than accuse the president of being a hypocrite, CREDO carefully phrases their criticism by calling upon the President to overturn the decision by his campaign to run the hypocritical radio ad.   It is an attempt to deny that President Obama is the one in this ad who is making all his outrageously fictitious pro-coal claims.  Instead they try to put the onus on his campaign.  Nonetheless; it is easy to see that even the President’s own supporters are beginning to get uncomfortable by the level of hypocrisy that their messiah is displaying.

Even the left is forced to to question which Barack Obama is running for reelection?  The one who spoke in the pro-coal radio ad offered above, or the one who has promised to bankrupt the coal industry and spent the past four years sapping investment in this industry and  importing coal in to the United States even though it can be found here, right under our feet.  As demonstrated in the video below, the record would seem to indicate that the Obama Administration is anything but a friend to the coal and energy industry.

All of this does prove one thing though.  Liberals, including the President, do have the market on one thing —-  hypocrisy.

Bookmark and Share

Tax-cheat Tim And The Pension Scandal

Bookmark and Share  With the release of damaging internal emails, suddenly there’s a new scandal developing in Washington. At the heart of the matter is the Delphi employee pension plans affected by the General Motors bailout. Delphi is an auto parts manufacturing company.

It’s a breaking scandal and the information is somewhat patchwork at this point but apparently, as part of the GM bailout deal, the government allowed union workers’ pensions to remain whole while it chopped the pensions of non-union workers — some 20,000 non-union Delphi workers had their pensions slashed by almost half.

Further, there are hints that the decision was not only made for political purposes (Democrats doing the bump and grind with unions) but that the U.S. Treasury Department, led by confirmed tax cheat Timothy Geithner, was the driving force behind it all.

If true, this presents several problems for the administration. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is the federal agency charged with independent administration of private-sector benefit issues, not the Treasury. According to 29 U.S.C. §1342, the PBGC is the only government agency legally empowered to initiate pension termination.

Thus, by federal law it should have been the PBGC that made the pension decisions, not Tax-cheat Tim and the Treasury. The White House and Treasury have consistently denied they were involved claiming it was strictly a PBGC decision. Which bring us to the next obstacle for the administration.

Obama bureaucrats have given sworn testimony before Congress and in federal court claiming the administration had nothing to do with the pension decisions. The recently obtained emails contradict this testimony hinting that Tax-cheat Tim was the driving force and that White House bumblecrats were in the loop. If true, then the Obama administration willfully mislead Congress and the court.

And sacrificed the pensions of 20,000 America citizens to demonstrate their allegiance to unions.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

Bookmark and Share

Three Presidential Debates and One Vice Presidential Debate Are Set for 2012

 Bookmark and Share  The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), has today announced the schedule, formats, and locations of the public debates that will pit the presidential and vice presidential candidates against one another in the 2012 election.

According to CPD co-chairmen Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry, there will be three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate and each will last 90 minutes and begin at 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time.   They will be moderated by a single individual and while each debate will not allow opening statements by the candidates, they will feature two-minute closing statements.

The schedule is as follows:

The first presidential debate will focus on domestic policy and be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on topics to be selected by the moderator and announced several weeks before the debate.

The moderator will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the topic.

The first and only Vice Presidential debate which will take place in Danville, Kentucky’s Center University will discuss both foreign and domestic topics and be divided into nine time segments of approximately 10 minutes each. The moderator will ask an opening question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the question.

The second presidential debate will differ from the other two by featuring a town hall format that will have questions on both foreign and domestic policy, asked by undecided voters who are selected by the Gallup Organization.  In this forum, the presidential candidates will have two minutes to respond, and an additional minute for the moderator to facilitate a discussion.

The final presidential debate will be dedicated to foreign policy and it’s format will be identical to that of the first debate.

As for additional details, the CPD has recommended that the candidates be seated at a table with the moderator in each of the debate except for the town hall style forum at Hofstra University.  As for the all important question of who the moderators will be, the CPD states that those individuals “will be selected and announced in August.”

While politics has become more of a forum for soundbites than substance, these debates may provide voters with the opportunity to get at least a better understanding of the candidates that attend them.  While each presidential and vice presidential nominee will undoubtedly respond to questions with well tested phrases or points that are chock filled with well rehearsed statistics and jargon, these debates will most likely be more important for the opinions that voters establish based upon the rare, unscripted moments that these debates often offer.

Who can forget when in 1992, President George H.W. Bush looked at as his wrist watch and left the viewing audience with the impression that he was uninterested in the process.  In a campaign where his Democrat opponent was doing his best to paint Bush as out of touch, Bush’s little look at at his watch seemed to simply confirm the point.

Or how about the 1976 debate gaffe of incumbent President Gerald Ford who during a debate with Jimmy Carter, claimed “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.” Taken back by the obviously false statement, he moderator, Max Frankel of the New York Times, incredulously responded , “I’m sorry, what? … Did I understand you to say, sir, that the Russians are not using Eastern Europe as their own sphere of influence in occupying most of the countries there and making sure with their troops that it’s a communist zone?”  The answer to that question should have been “No, I meant to suggest that the people of Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia may physically endure the heavy hand of Soviet intrusiveness, the Soviets have not won the hearts and minds of those people, freedom loving people who seek to themselves of Soviet interference. However; Ford refused to back down from his original statement, and insisted  that Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia were free from Soviet interference.

The results in that election were so close, that many have logically concluded that Ford’s debate gaffe about Soviet domination probably cost him the win.

In 2012, these debates could make or break the election for one candidate or the other, especially since the extreme political polarization that exists in most states will allow a handful of voters in approximately 6 states to probably determine who will win.  That means that the wrong move or the slightest slip of the tongue in these debates could easily change the course of history.

Bookmark and Share

Mitt Romney’s Speech Before the NAACP ……. Complete Video

 Bookmark and Share While an overwhelming 94% of all African-American voters have supported President Obama, the soon to be Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, stood before the NAACP’s national convention in Texas and stated;

“I believe that if you  understood who I truly am in my heart, and if it  were possible to fully  communicate what I believe is in the real,  enduring best interest of African  American families, you would vote for  me for President.  I want you to know that  if I did not believe that  my policies and my leadership would help families of  color — and  families of any color — more than the policies and leadership of  President Obama, I would not be running for president.”

Such was the case that Mitt Romney made for himself as he walked in to the proverbial Lion’s Den and addressed the nation’s oldest and largest African-American organization and tried to demonstrate that he will be a better President for not just Africfan-Americans, but all Americans.

The speech broke little new ground, and probably did little to change the minds of those in attendance but what it did do was demonstrate that the plight of African-Americans is no different from the plight of other Americans who are suffering from high unemployment and a government that is spending a trillion dollars more a year than it takes in.  But while Romney’s pitch was good, it was anything but well recieved by the obviously and ironically prejudiced, so-called civil rights audience in attendnace.   The less than tepid reception was to be expected given that that the impetus of Romney’s address to the NAACP  was his opposition to President Obama’s policies on everything from trade, the size of government, energy, the economy, education, and the issue that initited the largest round of boos, his opposition to Obamacare.

Still though, Romney set his address up in such a way  that it left African-Americans with some undeniably tough questions to answer to when trying to defend their support for President.

According to Romney;

“If someone had told us in the  1950s or 60s that a black citizen  would serve as the forty-fourth president, we  would have been proud and  many would have been surprised.  Picturing that day,  we might have  assumed that the American presidency would be the very last door  of  opportunity to be opened.  Before that came to pass, every other barrier  on  the path to equal opportunity would surely have to come  down.

“Of  course, it hasn’t happened  quite that way.  Many barriers remain.  Old  inequities persist.  In some ways,  the challenges are even more  complicated than before.  And across America — and  even within your  own ranks — there are serious, honest debates about the way  forward.”

Then Romney opened the door to make a case for why he would be a better President for all Americans , including those of color, than President;

“If equal opportunity in America  were an accomplished fact, then a  chronically bad economy would be equally bad  for everyone.  Instead,  it’s worse for African Americans in almost every way.   The unemployment  rate, the duration of unemployment, average income, and median  family  wealth are all worse for the black community.  In June, while the  overall  unemployment rate remained stuck at 8.2 percent, the  unemployment rate for  African Americans actually went up, from 13.6  percent to 14.4  percent.

“Americans of every background  are asking when this economy will  finally recover – and you, in particular, are  entitled to an answer.”

To additional boos Romney added;

 “If you want a President who will make things better in the African American community, you are looking at him.”


Romney ended his speech to the obviously appreehnsive audience on what was probably the single most conciliatory and positive note possible as closed his remark by notinng;

“You all know something of my  background, and maybe you’ve wondered how any Republican ever becomes governor  of Massachusetts in the first place.  Well, in a state with 11 percent  Republican registration, you don’t get there by just talking to Republicans.  We  have to make our case to every voter.  We don’t count anybody out, and we sure  don’t make a habit of presuming anyone’s support.  Support is asked for and  earned – and that’s why I’m here today…

“Should I be elected president,  I’ll lead as I did when governor.  I  will look for support wherever there is  good will and shared  conviction.  I will work with you to help our children  attend better  schools and help our economy create good jobs with better  wages.”

Some may argue that Romney’s appearance before the NAACP was a waste of time.  They will argue that the NAACP is hypocritically prejudiced organization that is anti-anything that is not liberal and which harbors within their ranks, pockets of a radical black racists.  Be that true or not, Mitt Romney demonstrated that he does not fear differnces of opinion and that he does not shy away from standing up for his beliefs even among those who may not believe in him.  And whether you agree with Romney or not, there was no denying that much of what he said was true.  President Obama’s policies have not worked for anyone,  most especially African-Americans who under President Obama have been negatively impacted by the deficit based culture of dependnecy and rates of unemployment that are higher for them than they are for anyother group of Americans in the nation.   So the question now becomes, is supporting a a person becuase of their color more important than defeating a person whos policies are hurting people of color?

Bookmark and Share

The Hidden Battle For America

Bookmark and Share  By now you’ve probably heard the United Nations issued a proposal last Thursday for a Billionaire’s Tax. If you haven’t heard, bundled within the proposal are taxes that will affect us, the common folk. But the Left can’t run headlines like “UN Calls For Middle-class America To Fund The World” can they? The semi-secret movement would end in a weekend. But make no mistake, this is yet another forced charity proposal to save humankind — at the expense of the American taxpayer.

It may appear to be a righteous pursuit and that is what the Left wants you to believe. Of course, this is merely illusion. Certainly contributing to your local church to help those in need is a noble effort. But shifting truly vast sums of money between countries via mandatory international taxes will only lead to obscene levels of corruption. How many well intentioned acts of charity have gone bad? Everyone has heard of the charity that pockets 80-cents of every dollar or that secretly diverts the money into someone’s pocket. California, offering to send money from custom license plates fees to victims of 9/11, was recently discovered actually funding other pursuits, giving just 1.5% of the cash to the beneficiaries. And we’ve all heard of war-lords leaving food for the oppressed on the docks to spoil. Allow yourself to contemplate a world cash swap based upon international taxes — what would ultimately become routine transactions — and the corruption scenarios become mind-bending.

As a practical matter, funding the world is a poorly conceived idea. It makes no sense. If you take a meal designed for one and split it among three adults, you don’t get three well-fed people. You end up with three under-fed people rather than two. The re-distribution of money works the same way.

And think of the administrative nightmare. In order to implement international taxes a centralized financial bureaucracy would need to be constructed to handle the collections, payouts and bookkeeping. To think the corrupt won’t drop their buckets into that river of money is beyond naive. Further, the only way to avoid one country funding a sworn enemy would be to have all countries under one umbrella, managed by pre-selected politicians that know where their bread is buttered.

But that is the ultimate point, isn’t it? This movement has nothing to do with going green or feeding the hungry. Those are political lies to mask the creation of a major financial bureaucracy, an international control mechanism, to support the transition to a one world government.

Is the thought so outrageous? Simply sell it to the peasants as helping all of humankind. Governments start the money flowing. From your centralized bureaucracy you dangle the dough and propose your terms — cash for allegiance. Here in America, our federal government does the exact same thing to the states — ‘if you want highway money, then enforce this law’. The international community, when united, applies the same principle, we call them economic sanctions. Once the cash for allegiance terms are proposed, countries that comply get to make a deposit and come under the umbrella of control, those that don’t are politically isolated and left to rot. Over time, and plenty of economic hardship, leadership will arise in these rebellious countries that will take the cash or, if necessary, these weakened rebels can be absorbed by force. (continued)

Crusaders, this goes beyond the recent Billionaire Tax and it’s fine print attachments. This movement is a 20, perhaps 30-year quest by the Left. The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) would force America to give away taxes and technology. And America would have no control over to whom the taxes and technology would be redistributed. The Small Arms Treaty is in direct conflict with the Second Amendment and designed to strip America of her guns. These are pressing issues. Just last month, Fox reported the Rio + 20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Agenda 21), proposed over $2 trillion a year in wealth transfers from rich countries to poorer ones, conveniently sold as funding “green infrastructure,” and “climate adaptation”. This is global Socialism. They also proposed new carbon taxes. If you don’t like the size of your utility bills now – just wait. Global welfare? You bet — social programs including a “social protection floor” and “safety nets” for the world’s most vulnerable were proposed. They also want price increases, flat out price hikes, on the use and consumption of anything derived from agriculture, fisheries, forestry, or other kinds of land and water use. Consider that for a moment.

Do you like the idea of paying $500, $1000 or $1,500 for a fishing or hunting license just so most of the money can be shipped to the UN? That is, if they allow you to fish or hunt. How about a federal fee for camping in the woods? You’re using forestry resources, aren’t you? How about an individual swimming permit, say $25 per person – per season, so you can take a plunge in the local lake or hang at the beach? Silly examples? Think again. How else could you get America to fund the world? If you attack American’s paychecks directly, you would create riots and rebellion. No, the better way is to be subtle. Over time classify virtually all of life as a “privilege” and charge a fee for pursuing the privilege. After all, you don’t have to take a swim.

The organized move to convert America to Socialism is happening. The UN isn’t the only attacker. Politicians like Obama, the Clintons, Pelosi, John Kerry and other liberal-socialists, looking for a seat at the international table, are working from the inside to help this occur. These people are legislating away the sovereignty of the United States. Crazy? Why does Obama consistently stomp on the Constitution? Why, when Europe’s economy is failing for all to see, is Obama and the Left forcing European-socialism upon America? Why is Obama supporting the Rio initiatives previously mentioned? Why did Hillary Clinton, on May 23rd, testify in favor of the Law of the Sea Treaty? As you read this, the Small Arms Treaty is being negotiated in talks scheduled between July 2 and July 27th. Obama, not even knowing how negotiations will end, has already said he’s going to sign it. Why? Because it doesn’t matter what the final agreement is. Any step toward banning guns is a positive step, no matter how small. It’s like sculpting — chip, chip, chip, chip. Enough chips and you transform a stone into a statue of Karl Marx.

Ask yourself, are Obama, Clinton and the others really amateurs? Are they really buffoons that are in over their head? Or is it more likely that a small number of hard-left fanatics, having gained power, are using ‘save the world’ tax initiatives, treaties, laws and Executive Orders to achieve their agenda?

You and I, my fellow citizen crusaders, and our children and grandchildren are dangerously close to being committed to funding the world. The UN billionaire’s tax and the myriad other initiatives put forth by the UN and lefty politicians here in the states, are designed to strip us of our money — it’s share the wealth on a global scale. They have already successfully grabbed huge junks of your home equity and retirement plans. Why hasn’t a single person gone to jail? Not one. And now the Small Arms Treaty is designed to take your guns. Obviously, when you’re broke and unarmed fighting a government you’re against is a difficult proposition.

Admittedly, America under attack from within is a tough concept for most people to wrap their head around. The Left uses this to their advantage. They label anyone that puts the pieces of the puzzle together a conspiracy nut. But consider rather than bombs, they are using treaties. In place of grenades, they’re using legislation. Rather than firing bullets, they fire off Executive Orders. The battle to overthrow American capitalism and replace it with American-euro socialism may be hidden from most people’s lives but that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

This election year isn’t just about the economy. It’s about America. Will the country be your vision or theirs.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

Bookmark and Share

Obama Plays Class Warfare With Bush Era Tax Cuts and Proposes a Litany of Loose Ends, Contradictions and Lies

 Bookmark and Share  In an announcement from the East Room of the White House, President Obama masterfully meshed his campaign strategy with economic policy by reapplying his class warfare tactics to the now annual debate on whether or not to extend the so-called Bush era tax cuts.  The President’s carefully crafted approach to the debate tries to paint the picture of a leader who is being logical, reasoned, and bi-partisan but beneath the superficial rhetoric of the President’s wording lies a litany of loose ends, contradictions, and lies.

According to the President;

“The Republicans say they don’t want to raise taxes on the middle class, and I don’t want to raise taxes on the middle class, so we should all agree to extend the tax cut for the middle class. Let’s agree to do what we agree on,”

On the surface, the statement sounds quite rational.  In a nation of voters who usually protest  against the lack of compromise in Washington, and the seeming lack of willingness by Republicans and Democrats to work together, President Obama’s appeal  sounds like a step in the right direction.  His wording sets the stage for the President to portray himself as willing to work with both sides, while casting an image of Republicans as rigidly inflexible, uncooperative, extremists who are out of touch with mainstream Americans as they protect the interests of wealthy Americans.

The President’s approach also dovetails quite well with his campaign’s overriding goal of trying to paint Republican standard bearer Mitt Romney as an out of touch, rich businessman.

If left unchallenged, the framework which the President has created for this debate will work well for him and his Party, but if challenged properly, Americans should easily be able to understand that the President’s framework is little more than a tangled web of contradictions and incongruent thoughts.

To begin, it is glaringly obvious that the President and his Party initiate this whole debate by conceding to Republicans that higher taxes are not good, especially during times of national economic hardship.  But at the same time that the President admits that taxes depress our economy, he also tries to argue that they only hurt when the middle class pay them.  It is a contradiction he makes when he argues that those making less than $250,000 a year will be hurt by a failure to extend the Bush tax cuts but that the same will not apply to those who make more than $250,000 a year.  He then further adds that extending the same tax cuts extensions for the rich are “least likely to promote growth”.

Now if logic plays a part here, even the most lobotomized liberal should be able to see how illogical the President’s claim is.

Why would taxing those who spend the most, invest the most and create the most jobs not have an adverse effect on the economy?  Is the President trying to contend that by increasing taxes on those who make $250,000 a year or more, we will be creating incentives for those same people to spend more, hire more, and invest more?  Where is the logic in that?

The point is that there is no logic in the President’s argument.  Unless of course you are a liberal living in a world that denies the laws of nature and defies everything from gravity, to the free market principles that were a part of the founding of this nation.

For decades now, liberals have mocked the Reagan-Kemp-Laffer economic theory of trickle down economics.  Despite evidence to the contrary, the left contends that wealth does not trickle down.  Instead they exist in a parallel universe where according to them,  the laws of gravity are reversed and that what goes down must come up.  In the alternative reality of a utopian liberal universe, the poor do not accumulate wealth from the rich, the rich become wealthier off of the poor.   But I have yet to see how that actually works.  In the reality I am forced to live in, the Warren Buffetts of the world do not go to poor and ask them for a loans or investments.   In my world, it is just the opposite.

But  for the President and his fellow leftists, admitting that wealth trickles down would be lethal to their political viability.  Such an admission would undercut the potency of the liberal mission to apply the socialist belief that it is the job of the government  is to spread the wealth.

Yet in a day and age when rhetoric trumps reality and facts are merely a set of words which individuals choose to believe or not, President Obama has set himself up on a political stage that he hopes will portray himself as a bipartisan leader who is looking out for the average working American.  But he does so by contradicting himself every step of the way.

In 2008 he promised to be a unifying force in politics.  But ever since taking office in 2009 he has been trying to conquer Republicans by dividing Americans along lines of class.  Despite the fact that The top 2 percent of taxpayers provide approximately 46 percent of all federal income and the that the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers—representing nearly 70 million tax returns—provided 3 percent of all federal income taxes, President Obama and his liberal minions continue to run with the phrase that the rich must pay their share.    Yet with the wealthiest 2% of Americans paying nearly half of the taxes in America, the facts indicate that the rich are paying much more than their share.  But again, those numbers undermine the liberal thought process and it takes the legs out from under the President’s class warfare strategy.

Still, the President’s capacity for framing the debate on the Bush tax cuts was a good attempt to continue to frame the 2012 election in a way that is most favorable to him.  It is easy to exploit the less noble aspects of human nature, especially during tough times.  It is easier to convince people that others are to blame for their lot in life than it is to convince those same people that they have to take responsibility for their own lot life.  And that is the type of campaign President Obama is running.  In his campaign and in his Administration the President tries to claim the high ground.  He tries to claim a willingness to work with Republicans.  Yet such things as his signature piece of legislation, Obamacare, was hardly an example of bipartisanship.  Our President tires to claim that he wants to work with Republicans on creating jobs, yet more than 30 House Republicans jobs bills remain dead because of the President’s refusal to force the liberal led senate to act upon them.

Now based upon the ludicrous belief that those making more than $250,000 have  no impact on the economy, the President attempts to frame his proposal to increase taxes on only those who he deems to be rich, as a compromise.

Well if the President really wants to compromise, I suggest that he do so in a meaningful.  A way that actually uses numbers and facts as a basis for compromise.  So how about we do this?

By refusing to extend the Bush era tax cuts to those making more than $250,000 a year, the President will save what amounts to the cost of operating the federal government for 8 days.  So I suggest that we base our compromise on the fact that even Democrats agree that raising taxes are bad and instead of raising them on anyone, we close all non-essential services of the federal government down for 8 days every year.  No foul no harm.  Now that’s a compromise.

Bookmark and Share

Get Your Free Mitt Romney “Believe In America” Bumper Sticker

Bookmark and Share    What better way to show your support for Mitt Romney than with a Believe in America bumper sticker! Just click on the link here or below to fill out the form below and to let the Romney Campaign know where to send it.

Bookmark and Share

Be Afraid – Be Very Afraid

Bookmark and Share  We now know Obama-tax is the law of the land. It’s a big-ass beast that’s here to stay unless the people kill it. Whether you’re Republican or Democrat, you’re probably not digging the idea of a big tax hike during a “recession”. Americans For Tax Reform estimates some $500 billion over 10 years and further, it includes 20 new or increased taxes already in effect or right around the corner. And not all but lots of these are applicable to wage earners at the $250,000 a year level or below. A level Obama swore he wouldn’t exploit. Worse, just yesterday CNBC reported the house ways and means committee says there are “21 tax increases costing more than $675 billion over the next ten years” and “75% of the costs could fall on the backs of those making less than $120,000 a year.” Geez, what happened to the $250,000 mark?

And as a result of Thursday’s ruling, The American Action Forum (AAF), says, because states now know they can cut their Medicaid rolls back to the federally designated minimums, that tax payers will get hammered further. AAF chief Douglas Holtz-Eakinand said,”It seems safe to say that the [health law] will leave the taxpayer on the hook for “an additional $500 billion or so in federal costs over the first 10 years.” Not good.

Recall in March, the Congressional Budget Office released an ‘official’ government adjustment for the cost of Obama-care over a decade from $940 billion to — here we go — $1.76 trillion. Now, according to AAF, we can throw another $500 billion or so on to that. Super.

Let’s be honest, whether it’s $940 billion or $1.76 trillion or over $2 trillion (if you add in AAF’s new $500 billion) this is absurd. This isn’t a 2-cent increase on everyone’s phone bill, you know, an unpleasant little creature hiding under the stairs. This is a colossal beast — dirty, drooling, dim and dangerously destructive. Doctors don’t like it, businesses don’t like it and the majority of people (about 60%) don’t like it. Who does? The supreme ruler, San Fran Nan and other liberal-socialist politicians and their followers. But they represent the minority.

You’re going to hear lots of speeches that include personal stories of how Obama-care helps Joe. You’ll see lots of television commercials about how Sally was saved by Obama-care. These are designed to tug on your heart. Don’t be swayed. Unrolling benefits before costs was an intentional move by Democrats. Everyone knows the bill always comes after the meal. Pay close attention. It will be interesting to see how many seniors are paraded out as examples of success and how many times the phrase cost-utility analysis is used.

Cost-utility analysis is used to estimate the ratio between the cost of treatment and any benefit in terms of the number of years lived in full health by the patient. Basically, it’s a financial calculation to determine whether a medical procedure is worth it. For example, does an Obama-care bureaucrat authorize heart surgery for a 74-year old? Does a government bureaucrat authorize a life long, expensive prescription to a 15-year old? And what if, say, the prescription doesn’t really bring “full health” but rather just maintains the 15-year old at his or her current level of impairment. This is the Obama-care you won’t see on television or hear in rah-rah speeches — a bureaucrat running cost-utility analysis on a spreadsheet in a cubicle in Washington. Are these death panels? You tell me.

You’ll also be presented with the false choice of Obama-care or back to the old ways. I’d wager virtually everyone in America would be receptive to re-working healthcare. The argument is that this particular healthcare proposal sucks. Sure there are some strong concepts, but the rest just blows — big time. It wasn’t thoughtful legislation. It arose from emotional and fanatical, liberal-socialist ideology — it’s been a wet-dream for the Left for a 100 years — quick we’re in power, rush, rush, sign, sign. It wasn’t even written when it was passed.

All I’m saying is deranged Doc Barack, his loony lab assistant San Fran Nan and the other liberal-socialist scientists had their shot at mixing the test tubes and they concocted this monstrosity. And now it’s on the loose. We need to destroy this monster now, before it destroys us. There are other ways to approach healthcare that don’t need massive government, outrageous taxes and costs or bureaucratic death panels — pardon me, cost-utility calculations.Bookmark and Share

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell Named Chairman of The Republican National Convention Platform Committee

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell

Bookmark and Share  Every four years, in addition to nominating a President and Vice President, the quadrennial Republican National Convention is also responsible for hammering out a platform which is meant to explain what the Republican Party truly stands for.  The process is often contentious and at times the most suspenseful, but largely behind the scene, aspect of the convention and in many ways is every bit as important as the process to nominate our presidential ticket and this year conservative Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell has been given the responsibility of constructing this all important platform.

The announcement came late today from RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.  In it Priebus  also declared that Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota and Representative Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee will serve as Co-Chairmen.

The move is one which is likely to please the conservative base of the Party who largely trust the conservative credentials of all three members of the newly established platform leadership committee.

But the announcement also probably signals that Bob McDonnell is out of the running for Vice President.

For many months now, the popular Governor of the important swing state of Virginia has been considered a top contender for the vice presidency.  But with his new position on the critically important Platform Committee, that would seem highly unlikely.  And the same goes for Marsha Balckburn who White House 2012 has also considered a vice presidential contender.

The prominent responsibility of defining all that the G.O.P. stands is always a difficult task that walks a fine between attempting to articulate a platform that accomplishes a nearly impossible goal……….  unite the nations while taking strong stands on some of the most polarizing issues in the nation.  Such a goal can often be just as a difficult among partisan Republicans as it is among partisan Republicans and Democrats.  And this year, Republicans can anticipate at least few attempted floor fights on several planks, especial those dealing with spending.

Ron Paul supporters have already vowed to employ their traditionally obnoxious behavior to try to help assure that the G.O.P. platform adopts some of their messiah’s irresponsible views.  Such fights are not likely to get very far considering that Ron paul has a grand total of 158 delegates compared to Romney’s 1,512, but thew will certainly receive a great deal of attention from a national and international media that will be doing it’s best to to cover any of the rare unscripted moments at the convention.    All this means that as Chairman of the Platform Committee, Bob McDonnell will go into the convention as a figure who could become embroiled in some of the most controversial aspects of the national convention and that is not the type of figure that Romney will want to nominate as his running mate.

On the flip side, while McDonnell supporters may be disappointed in the downgrading of his chances to be nominated Vice President, conservatives can rest assured that 2012 Republican platform will reflect an authoritative, right of center based explanation of what it means to be a Republican.

According to McDonnell;

“I look forward to hearing from voters across the country as we seek to give voice to the concerns, priorities, and values of the American people. This process is about more than writing; it is about listening. Voters deserve a party who listens to them.  The Obama presidency has been a difficult time for Virginians and for Americans. Our Platform will outline the way forward for our economy and a new and better direction for our country.”

 Bookmark and Share

John Roberts Ruled Against Judicial Activism and Handed the 2012 Election to Republicans

 Bookmark and Share  Today’s lengthy landmark Supreme Court decision on the affordable care act in the case of the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius will take time to fully digest.  It is filled with multiple precedent setting judicial opinions.  Most notable was the court’s near unanimous decision to finally rule that the federal government’s powers under the commerce clause are in fact limited.  The commerce clause has consistently been used as a means for which Congress has been able to abuse its powers.  However, make no mistake, the ruling on this case was a victory for President Obama.  It upheld the heart of his signature legislation, the so-called Affordable Care Act.  But the victory comes at a very high price for him and all Americans.

For Americans the decision’s economic impact will bring about a further contraction of our economy. Businesses which have been holding their breath until there was some finality on Obamacare will now pull the trigger on any short term expansion and new hires. Within less than an hour of the Supreme Court ruling, the stocks experienced a broad and dramatic selloff . All of this means that our fragile and stagnant economy is now certain to continue to remain on the verge of a downward spiral into a double dip recession or depression.

And those are just the immediate, tangible, ramifications of the constitutionality of the Obamacare. Other more ideological ramifications affecting people because of the court’s decision are rooted in the fundamentals of our free society and the power of government.

For President Obama, the price of the court’s declaring his government-centric healthcare law constitutional, is a significant undermining and value of  himself, his word, and his liberal based Party.

Through the healthcare reform debate debacle, the President and his liberal minions declared that their forced individual mandate was not a tax.  But the President’s attorneys argued before the Supreme Court that the mandate was a tax and now the Supreme Court has agreed.  So the stage is set for Americans to go to the polls in November and consider whether or not President Obama deserve to be reelected after his signature accomplishment was proven to be based upon what are ultimately lies.

In addition to that, the decision has now ensured that the 2012 election will ultimately come down to two things.  Taxing and spending.

While many on the right are quite disappointed and angered by the decision and more specifically Chief Justice John Roberts for his being the swing vote in this case, I am not.  The individual mandate is a tax and the Constitution gives Congress full authority when it comes to taxation.  So whether it is convenient for conservatives or not, Roberts is probably right in a very round about way.  His opinion in this case was a conservative victory in the sense that it upheld a key tenet of conservativism……. our opposition to judicial activism.  Chief Justice Roberts is also correct in his written opinion on the case when he suggests that while some policies may be legal, that does not mean that those same policies are smart or helpful.  In his remarks, Roberts suggests that in line with the laws of our land, the solution to such situations is found not in the courts but in the hands of the voting public who can change policies at the ballot box.  And while the court’s decision may initially seem to be a conservative setback, it has successfully helped to define what the 2012 election is now all about.

The court’s decision to deem the individual mandate to be a tax, now helps the American people to focus on the liberal policies of taxing and spending, the very issues at the heart of our economic condition which many including the former Secretary of Defense have described as so dire that it is a national security issue.

After nearly four years of a liberal dominated government, Americans have gotten a taste of the ideological extremes of the two dominant political philosophies in our nation and they are quickly losing faith in the liberal policies that have gotten us to the dreary point we are at today.  The electorate is extraordinarily polarized, so much so that the presidential election will essentially be decided by 25 million independent minded voters in anywhere from 6 to 8 states.  The rest of the population is more or less solidly on one side or the other.  They either want a government that does more, spends more, and controls more, or they want a government that does less, spends less, and controls less.  And today’s decision only clarifies this choice.

The Supreme Court’s decision merely  helped to highlight this choice.

If Republicans can continue to frame the 2012 election in this manner, they will have a good shot at increasing the size of their majority in the House, taking control of the U.S. Senate, and winning the White House.

Of course with Mitt Romney’s own fingerprints on a state healthcare mandate in Massachusetts that he was the driving force behind when he was the Bay State’s Governor, he may not be the best person to lead this fight for the G.O.P.   Comparisons of Romneycare and Obamacare will blur the ideological lines that this election can be won or lost on.  Or will it?

Romney’s legitimate defense for his healthcare plan in Massachusetts is that it’s a states rights issues.

As Governor he had the right to prescribe a cure to his state’s unique problems.  But as President, Barack Obama devised a one-size-fits-all plan that mandated states to do what liberals in the federal bureaucracy want.   This brings us back to today’s Supreme Court ruling.  While it declared Obamacare’s individual mandate constitutional, it declared other aspects that specifically forced states to comply with sections of the law, as unconstitutional.  This again brings up the ideological debate on how much power should the federal government have.  In  this case, over the states.  For Romney, even though his Massachusetts healthcare plan is an albatross around his neck, it positions him quite well to campaign on a very potent states rights plank.

In the end, today’s victory for the President will be quite short lived and in the final analysis it will boost the chances of a Republicans to win control of all three branches of the federal government.  By ruling that the individual mandate is constitutional, the very same T.E.A. forces which elected a record number of Republicans  to the House in 2012, have just been reactivated and incorporated into Mitt Romney’s base vote.  And in addition to that, the issues which Democrats are weakest on have just become center stage.  That will especially be the case when the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts come up for debate during the election.

With the individual mandate deemed constitutional, Americans are now facing the creation of the largest American federal entitlement program in history and it comes at a time when entitlements are destroying our national economy as well as the economies of many of our city’s and states.   This is the issue which produced a surprise landslide vote of confidence for Republican Governor Scott Walker in the recent liberal and union initiated recall election.

But perhaps the most powerful argument in the 2012 election will be this.

Since Obamacare is constitutional because the individual mandate is legally considered a tax, do the American people really want to encourage the liberal tax and spend policies of Democrats by rubber stamping their policies at the voting booth?  Do Americans want to expand the entitlement policies that are bringing down our economy?  Do Americans want to continue down the current path that is turning us into a European-style socialist nation, with permanent high unemployment, business-killing regulations and taxes, a shriveling private sector, and a loss of stature in a dangerous world?

All in all, I must say, today might just be the day that Barack Obama lost the presidency and that the liberal base of the Democrat Party turned themselves in to the minority Party for years to come.  Now, Republicans have to step up to the plate.  It is one thing for Democrats to lose the election, but it is another thing for Republicans to win the election.  Today, the G.O.P. has been given a chance to define a more responsible course for our nation that is based not just on constitutional government policies, but smart and effective government policies.  So if Republicans intend to win this election in their own right and not just by default, they must begin to lead.  That requires us to produce bold plans, plans to reform such things as our arcane tax code and how to strengthen the American free market and entrepreneurial spirit that is driving force behind our economic health.  And in the case of Obamacare, we need to know not just how earnest they will be in repealing bad policies but what if anything are they willing to replace those bad policies with.

Bookmark and Share

Conservative Policies Are Making A Difference

Bookmark and Share  One big reason Republican Governor Scott Walker survived the recall vote in Wisconsin is that things are improving there economically. The conservative agenda Walker and the Republicans have put into place, although horrifying to the left, is producing positive results. Wisconsin’s budget, once a $3.6 billion deficit nightmare is in the black. Property taxes were decreased and the state has added some 28,000 jobs.

But Wisconsin isn’t the only state where conservative approaches have made a positive difference.

In New England, a hot bed for liberalism, New Hampshire’s Republican dominated state legislature is pushing conservative policies down the throat of Democratic Governor John Lynch. As you might expect, as a Democrat, Lynch has been somewhat uncooperative. The legislature passed a right-to-work bill that Lynch vetoed. The same result came from two school choice bills.

House Speaker William O’Brien, told Politico, “This Republican legislature is the first legislative majority that has challenged him… so what does he do? He’s not going to run again [for reelection]. He’s been called out on issues. I think what he’d rather do is function as a symbolic head of state than a head of government.”

Focused and motivated, the legislature has an upcoming vote to override Lynch’s school bill vetoes. Medicare malpractice changes and anti-fraud welfare measures sit on his desk awaiting signatures. Overcoming the resistance is a battle but other initiatives have achieved a balanced budget that didn’t raise taxes or service fees. State spending has been reduced 17 percent and there’s a plan in place to ship over $600,000 of healthcare cash back to Obama.

Down in Florida, despite the left’s obsession with ballot lists, the state’s economy is showing signs of life. In April, the state unemployment rate was reported at 8.7 percent, a significant drop from a high of 11.4 percent in 2010. A recent Republican party  press release stated, “Since Governor Scott took office, a total of 99,600 private sector jobs have been added in Florida,” and it continued, “lower taxes, reduced regulation and a balanced budget are giving the private sector the confidence it needs to expand, grow and add jobs.”

In Virginia, a 5.6 percent unemployment rate is a feather in the cap for Republican governor Bob McDonnell. Elected in 2009, McDonnell has emphasized creating a business-friendly environment within the state.

“I would suggest that what we’re trying to do with Virginia is keep regulations low, limit lawsuits, provide great universities and just be positive about entrepreneurs, about people who create jobs and then, provide a little incentive money in tax credits and get companies to come and existing businesses to grow,” McDonnell said.

It is guaranteed that Obama and the Democrats, reeling from a horrific national economy, will step in and falsely claim improving state economies are the result of their policies. But make no mistake, it is Republican governors and Republican legislatures in states like Florida, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Virginia, that have tossed unproductive tax policies, excessive regulations and irresponsible spending into the trash. The Republicans that run these states are producing positive results with a fiscally responsible, conservative approach to state government.

Follow I.M. Citizen on Facebook or visit at IMCitizen.net

Bookmark and Share

How Romney’s First Hundred Days Will Reverse the Damage of the Last Three and a Half Years

Bookmark and Share  The Romney campaign has released a new infographic that details how his first hundred days as President would begin to reverse the regressive policies of the Obama Administration.

From repealing and replacing Obamacare to slashing burdensome federal red tape, a Romney Presidency will be anything but more of the same.  The first 100 days of a Romney Presidency will be the first 100 days toward getting America back on track and reversing the damages of the last three and a half years.  Mitt Romney has the plans to turn our country around and the experience to get the job done.

Click here to view a printable version.

Bookmark and Share

The Romney campaign recetnly went a step further and with the help of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, articulated how on day one, President Romney will reverse Obama’s job-killing policies.

As argued by Conressman Ryan, Mitt Romney will start repealing the red tape that’s choking off jobs and hindering our recovery. He will start repealing Obamacare, which is putting so much uncertainty in businesses. He’ll begin the process of lowering tax rates by closing special interest loopholes, which help small businesses with certainty so they can create jobs.

He’ll announce a 5% spending cut on government agency budgets to begin the process of deficit reduction, and he will approve the Keystone pipeline which we know will create lots of jobs and help make us a whole lot less dependent on foreign oil.
Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: