Why We MUST Have Romney; What a Foolish Argument

The Republican primary for the 2012 presidential election has officially begun, and many voices are proclaiming Romney as the only one that could possibly beat Obama. Romney is also presented as a true conservative candidate behind whom the party should unite. Here’s an article written by Lauren Noble on the Daily Caller Opinion Page, one of so many flooding the internet these days, followed by the truth about Romney.

Right at the start Lauren begins with an oft-repeated lie.

As many in the GOP scramble to find a candidate, there have been calls for anyone but Romney. Efforts are already underway to brand Romney as a RINO. Such a label is profoundly inaccurate and hurts the Republican Party’s best chance at recapturing the White House in 2012.

Mitt Romney doesn’t have to be branded as a RINO because he’s never been a conservative. He’s the one that supports gay marriage, was pro-abortion, an environmentalist, and pro-ethanol subsidies. He is known to have said that the former Senator Kennedy was not liberal enough for Massachusetts. So no one is suddenly branding him as a RINO. He’s always been one and his record proves it.

Lauren then continues with the following:

Romney’s acumen as an executive stands out in any field of candidates and this one in particular. From his extraordinary success in the private sector, Romney can speak credibly about the economy and job creation. His fiscal conservatism reaches beyond balanced budgets in the short-term. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney not only balanced the budget every year without raising taxes but also rescued the Commonwealth’s Stabilization Fund, also known as the “rainy day fund.” By the time Romney left office in 2007, the fund held $2.3 billion.

Palin, Pawlenty, and others have also been executives, and pretty successful ones. For those of you shouting that Palin wasn’t a governor for a full term while Romney was four years, Pawlenty was eight years, so don’t get all wee-weed up. 

Although Romney’s extraordinary success in the private sector is truly remarkable and I give him credit for his achievements, that doesn’t necessarily create a conservative small-government candidate. Warren Buffet and Mike Bloomberg are also very successful businessmen.

About the taxes claim, perhaps Mitt didn’t create any new taxes, but he did enforce several fees, and his state-run healthcare mandates forced his successor to implement new taxes to cover for the rising costs of Romney’s legislation. Mitt also has left his state with a deficit and because of his policies the debt of MA has been increasing with each passing year.

 

Look at what comes next:

Contrast this record with that of former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, who is seen as one of Romney’s strongest challengers for the Republican nomination. In his efforts to balance Minnesota’s budget, Pawlenty emptied his state’s rainy day fund. Before he entered office in 2003, the state’s budget reserve contained $653 million. By 2010, Pawlenty’s last year in office, the balance of the account was zero. Is that the mark of someone serious about entitlement reform and the national debt? Such a record inspires little confidence in Pawlenty’s ability to successfully tackle these long-term problems.

I’ll be up front with you and admit I’m not that too familiar with Pawlenty’s figures since I disagree with him on several issues. I do know that Palin left a multi-billion surplus that Alaska still benefits from today in a time when the rest of the country including MA was suffering from a recession. Additionally, If you have access to any recent poll whether Gallup, Rasmussen, or others, Pawlenty is way down on the bottom next to Michelle Bachman, Rick Santorum,  and John Huntsman. The front runners are Romney, Palin, Gingrich, and even radical Ron Paul. So if you want to debate who the best candidate for the GOP is in 2012, don’t just pick one guy and declare him as Romney’s greatest opposition and pretend it’s either Romney or Pawlenty so we have to go with Romney. There are other great candidates joining the field.

 

Now for the most hilarious part of her article:

And yet, in spite of his fiscally conservative credentials, Romney continues to endure criticism from conservatives primarily because of his support for universal healthcare in Massachusetts. In 2008, it would have been difficult to imagine that Romneycare could become Romney’s greatest political liability. At a fundraiser in Massachusetts during the 2008 primaries, Romney even joked that the fact that he and Senator Ted Kennedy agreed on a piece of legislation might have meant one of them hadn’t read it.
  
Now that Romney takes heat for the fact that his plan is cited as the blueprint for Obamacare, he continues to offer the same defense he gave in 2008: namely, that Romneycare is imperfect and not intended as a “one size fits all” plan. At a speech in January 2007, for example, Romney admitted: “I can’t tell you that what we came up with in Massachusetts is the only and best solution.” Such an explanation did not stop National Review from endorsing him for the Republican nomination in 2008 as “the most conservative viable candidate.” And it should not stop conservatives from supporting him today.

Because Mitt Romney was able to joke at the fact that he and Ted Kennedy agreed on his state-run healthcare mandates and that the National Review endorsed him, I’m supposed to ignore the true facts about his healthcare? Why didn’t you find it important to bring this Romney quote which he had said at that time? “If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation." Or perhaps this exchange he had with Charlie Gibson in the ABC debate?

GIBSON: But Government Romney's system has mandates in Massachusetts, although you backed away from mandates on a national basis.

ROMNEY: No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.

This article has become way too long, so here’s one last piece of nonsense, and you can read the rest if you wish over here.

Conservatives need to accept the reality that Romney had two options governing a state as blue as Massachusetts. The first option: reach across the aisle and govern. The second: stand against the Democratic legislature and get nothing done. The first can be politically risky; the latter can be politically reckless. Why should Romney apologize for choosing leadership over posturing?

I got a third option, if you can’t stand up and govern according to your principles then get out of the kitchen. Find even one conservative principle Romney claims to support that he hasn’t abandoned in his quest for governorship? Have you never heard of someone standing up to their beliefs? If he’s a conservative, what’s he doing in liberal MA anyways? A person has to put principle before one’s position. He doesn’t have to apologize; he simply doesn’t have to pretend being conservative either.

This article has been cross posted at Red State.
 

Morning Opinion Round-Up

Thoughts with your Coffee

 Lloyd Marcus:
Tea Are The World

 Thomas Sowell:
Seductive Beliefs

Dan Spencer:
Obama’s military gap

 NewsBusters:
Krugman: Government Should Solve Unemployment By Hiring People To Repair Roads

Legal Insurrection:
Obama's Greatest Foreign Policy Victory - Manuel Zelaya Returns To Honduras

The Shark Tank:
St. Pete Times’ Ginned Up Marco Rubio Illegal Immigration Controversy

Niall Ferguson:
Democrats show they still haven't learned the lessons of Europe.

Andrew Stiles:
No, Seriously, What’s the Democratic Plan?

J Post:
Report: Over 400 al-Qaida terrorists now in Sinai

Barry Rubin:
The Key to Obama’s Foreign Policy: the World Turned Upside Down

AWR Hawkins:
Are You Better Off Now Than You Were Two Years Ago?

Ruben Navarrette Jr.:
Obama’s Immigration Policy: The Audacity of Manipulation

:Dan Miller:
Torture? Racism? Genocide? When It Means Everything, It Means Nothing

Editor's Note

In honor of those who have fought for and sacrificed their lives for the freedom and safety of the United States of America, and in remembrance of their courage and unity, I have chosen to abstain from blogging until Tuesday morning.

Let us not forget how this country has originally been comprised of separate states that has joined together to form one united country. Yes, at times this country seems so divided that we can't agree on a single topic. Now is a time to act as citizens of the United States of America.

United, as Americans, we will spend the day to commemorate those that have served in our military. 

Morning Opinion Round-Up

Thought with your Coffee

Victor Davis Hanson:

Why Study War?

Joe Nocera:

Don’t Scorn Paul Ryan

Datechguy:

Exhibit A in the Stop Palin Campaign, Dave Journolist Weigel

Althouse:

Byron York: The 2012 Campaign is Unlike the Past

Barbaric Thoughts:

Larry Kudlow: “I Want Sarah Palin to Teach Mitt Romney Economics”

Legal Insurrection:

Saturday Night Card Game (A Friend Told Me He Chugged 40s In High School)

Sarah Palin:

Obama’s Strange Strategy: Borrow Foreign Money to Give to Foreign Countries

Ed Morrissey:

Clyburn: I never said the word “racism”!

Could Kucinich turn WA-01 red in 2012?

Romney: Hey, I like ethanol subsidies!

Hot Air – Green Room:

A treatment for Mediscare?

The Washington Examiner:

Forget the spin. Taxpayers still on the hook for auto bailouts

We're the problem

Orange County Register – Mark Steyn:

Cowed by udderly insane regulations

RCP – Rich Lowry:

The Most Important Question in Politics

Editor's Note

As an Orthodox and religious Jew I won't be blogging or updating anything at all whatsoever every week from Friday evening until Saturday night. 

Sunday's Morning Opinion Round-Up will have an accumulation of the past two days worth of news and opinion. 

Have a wonderful weekend!

Morning Opinion Round-Up

Thought with your Coffee

Neal Boortz

America Isn't Europe ... Yet

National Review

Republicans and Medicare

Marco Rubio

Looking for Medicare solutions, not politics as usual

Hot Air

Joe Klein: The result in NY-26 was a “victory for socialism”

Phillip Klein

No Time for GOP Fear

John Hayword

The State of Sarah

Stanley Kurtz

Pro-Palestinian-in-Chief

David Kim

Mr. President, Here's How You Create Jobs

Red State: Moe Lane

Good News / Bad News for Debbie Wasserman Schultz!

Front Page Mag

Tom Friedman: Bring Tahrir Square to Jerusalem

NY-26: A Victory for Medi-Scare Tactics

Egypt Comes Out for Hamas

Fox News

Rebranding GM, Chrysler Bailouts Means Michigan is in Play for 2012

Why Ron Paul is Unacceptable

It’s time to take to task an oft-repeated point from Ron Paul supporters and those leaning to Ron Paul. I constantly hear how one’s disagreement with Paul’s foreign policy shouldn’t keep conservatives back from voting for him because of his conservative stance on domestic policy. They then go on to explain that it’s impossible to find a candidate with which you agree with 100% of the times, so this will be the one issue you have an opposing view. This reasoning is utter absolute nonsense. Here’s why. True, it’s probably impossible to find someone that you agree with on every topic; however one has to have the ability to recognize which issues will have a greater effect on the future of this country. Domestic policy has always been pretty high on the list, but so has foreign policy. Specifically in such tumultuous times we need a leader that will reaffirm America’s image in the world as the outstanding country it is.

A vote for or against Ron Paul is essentially the difference between lifting the blame off the terrorists’ shoulders and claiming that we’re the ones to have provoked them, or blaming Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda who’ve actually taken credit for the attacks and hate us for who we are no matter what we do. By supporting Ron Paul, one aligns themselves with the truthers, and with Paul’s warped ideology that if we keep to ourselves then no one will seek to harm us, which happens to be exactly what we were doing when we suddenly got hit with 9/11. If you stand with Ron Paul, that defines you as one who’s for the shrinking of our defense system, the shutting down of many federal agencies including the F.B.I., C.I.A., Homeland Security, and FEMA.

Ron Paul’s refrain that America simply doesn’t have the money to fight the war on terror which is bankrupting the nation, can be clarified with the following; a multi-millionaire is hurrying to a business meeting with a briefcase full of cash late one night in a deserted neighborhood when a shadow jumps out, waves a handgun and barks, “Money or life!” Would anyone in their right mind in such a situation begin bargaining to keep a portion of the money so that he won’t remain completely penniless? Or would one give up his entire fortune and be thankful to come out of such an ordeal with their life intact?

Osama Bin Laden has clearly expressed his hatred towards all Americans and infidels and his desire to wipe us out unless we accept the Koran. Although he’s now dead, Al Qaeda is not, and his followers and admirers still believe in and practice jihad. Paul’s argument that we can’t afford this fight is pretty pathetic, for when it comes to one’s survival no price is too high. Come to think of it, the U.S. is actually more like a parent whose child is being held for ransom but has no money. Every parent would borrow and beg until he had enough money to save his child. So too, the U.S. is deeply in debt and is borrowing from China and others. However, when it comes to the safety of its citizens, money is not what should be the deciding factor. Additionally, our debt is in existence way before we have retaliated against the Islamic terrorists, and is mainly because of several domestic programs that the Democrats have implemented and are spiraling out of control. So if it’s the economy and the debt one truly worries about, the proper place to start is at the core of the problem.

Ron Paul believes that our support of Israel is detrimental to Isael and America, because it infuriates and the terrorists and gives them to attack. We see how much Obama’s apology to the Muslim world has accomplished on that end! Ignoring terrorists or attempting to appease them hasn’t worked and won’t work. We must confront evil head-on. Ron Paul’s foreign policy is to treat good and evil equally. Sound like a giving the same medication to a healthy individual, a kid with an ear infection, and a patient battling cancer.

Conservatives are not against government, they are against BIG government. No government = lawlessness. Big government = oppression. Small government=individual freedom and safety for citizens. Ron Paul supports no government. Barack Obama supports big government. We need someone who will fight for small government. 

Morning Opinion Round-Up

Thoughts with your Coffee

Brent Bozell
No One May Lecture Obama
 
Michelle Malkin
Porkulus Cash for Tax Cheats   

Pajamas Media – Victor David Hansen
Where Dreams Die


NRO – Victor David Hansen
An Honest Obama Campaign  
 Back to the Pre-American World?

NRO – Andrew C. McCarthy
Obamacare for Israel

Big Government – Joel Pollack
Ride That Third Rail

Big Journalism – Lee Stranahan
Al Sharpton, the NAACP, and the Dunbar Village Rape

Big Journalism – P.J. Salvatore
Ed Schultz Suspended

Daniel Greenfield
Three Cheers for Terroristine

Washington Times
EDITORIAL: Obama versus Boeing

Michael Goodwin
Obama left to choke on Bibi's dust

NRO – Jim Geraghty
Bill Clinton is Going Rogue

Gallup
Romney, Palin Lead Reduced GOP Field for 2012


Question of the Day:
Which is worse, Obama mentioning Churchill five times in speech after having returned the bust from Churchill, or Obama holding his glass and making a toast while "Long Live the Queen" was playing?

A Time to Remain Silent and a Time to Speak Out

Palin, Santorum, McCain, and Schmidt

Rick Santorum is being smeared as having undermined McCain’s military record when Santorum he did was point out that McCain doesn’t understand how enhanced interrogations works. McCain denounced the last four CIA directors including the current one which all agree that the enhanced interrogations of KSM got him to reveal information which led us to Osama. (Panetta originally agreed although he now says that one can’t know for sure whether the information couldn’t have been gotten in a different manner or from a different source. I guess he doesn’t want to lose his job in this gangster government.) Additionally, John McCain disparaged Bush’s former Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s statement on how effective the enhanced interrogation had been, as false. After Rick Santorum criticized John McCain, the media bashed Santorum and victimized Santorum. Santorum is totally right on this one, however this all reminded me of a time when he was at the judgment table condemning Palin. 

Approximately two years ago, on the fourth of July, Sarah Palin announced in a press conference that she’s won’t run for reelection as Governor in Alaska and is actually ending her governorship midterm rather than remaining lame duck.  Her announcement came almost a year after the presidential campaign had ended, though she was still coming under constant attack from the vicious media, who shamelessly smeared her, her husband, her children, and her parents with the most absurd and disgusting lies. She had been the most popular governor of the United States but was continuously disrupted from doing her job because of fraudulent hate-filled ethical lawsuits against her, which consumed so much of her time and money, and so much of the state’s resources. After her resignation she went on to write a book, sold millions of copies, and actually became a millionaire, to the teeth gnawing of those that hate her.

 After her resignation, Rick Santorum went on several interviews as well as filled in for Bill Bennett’s radio show, in which he kept on demanding for a better explanation from Sarah Palin for quitting.  I then wanted to tell him the following, but didn’t have where, how, or to whom. “You know very well she’s been sued nonstop. You’re well aware of the media and their viciousness, after all I’m sure you remember how they treated you when you ran for reelection in Pennsylvania and lost with 59% of the votes. 

Rick Santorum, I’m fully on your side now and totally agree with you about enhanced interrogations, however I just felt compelled to point out the above. Regarding McCain, his criticism, unlike those of the leftists, got me so worked up because I don’t expect much of them. After all, the typical liberal lunatic never faced evil in their lives and therefore has no problem defending evil. Liberals act without any logic or common sense. Not what was or could be, only on their emotions of the moment; you’re torturing these poor, poor, prisoners. John McCain, however, has faced evil, vicious evil, unlike these “enhanced interrogation methods.” He spent five years under the Vietnamese who didn’t give a hoot to International laws or the lives of their prisoners. After facing cruelty for so many years, how can he not despise evil? How can he not agree to interrogate the most evil people on the face of this earth? The talk is of terrorists who blew up buildings from which hundreds have jumped tens of stories to their death while many more were burnt alive. Terrorists who blew up schools, school buses and cars in the midst of cities, killing and injuring innocent civilians. And John McCain came out in their defense, that it’s not our country’s principles to interrogate and that these interrogations don’t even help?

McCain has not always let himself be heard, including times when he was expected to comment on a particular story or issue. A successful Governor enjoying her family, job and record high approval rating, agreed to join his ticket as VP which led to his poll numbers to climb upwards (until the economic collapse.) His very own campaign manager, Steve Schmidt smeared her as though she didn’t know that Africa is a continent. Oh sure, every third grader knows the seven continents and he wanted we should all believe that Palin, the Governor for 700,000 people, former mayor for 7,000 people, and former Alaskan Oil Commissioner, didn’t know that. After Steve Schmidt was on “Sixty Minutes” where he mocked and ripped Palin and was actually angry when Palin named him as the anonymous source that spread ridiculous lies against her. Schmidt blamed Palin as the cause to McCain’s losing, and not the economy. McCain however, chose to remain silent.  

Now, when America is trying to extract some information from terrorists that can prevent future attacks and save the lives of countless Americans, McCain is constantly criticizing the torturing, yes torture-since when do we care about terrorists so much that I have to spend the extra couple of seconds to constantly write out “enhanced interrogation methods”? McCain felt it important to write an op-ed in the Washington Post accusing the former Attorney General in lying and our intelligence in acting Un-American for torturing terrorists. This is the very same John McCain who couldn’t bring himself to come out a single time in defense of his former running mate, to defend her children, her ethics, her honesty, her conservatism, anything! At the present time, he is willing to go on one interview after the other to ensure that every American has the opportunity to hear how opposed he is to interrogating terrorists. 

John McCain, yes there are times when one should act gentlemanly, as Sarah Palin did when she endorsed you for reelection in 2010. As a person of principle, it had been expected of you to at least say Palin is on the top of your list for 2012. Being a gentleman includes repaying a favor and appreciating good deeds others have done for you. Senator McCain, I’m not forgetting or putting down neither the years you served in the army, nor your dedication to your fellow POW’s during the years you were captured and tortured in Vietnam, but when you are wrong I feel I have to take you to task.

Morning Opinion Round-Up

Thoughts with your Coffee

NY Sun:

Netanyahu's Triumph

John Ziegler:

The Myth of Sarah Palin’s Stupidity

Dennis Prager:

When It Comes to Doomsdays, the Left Shouldn't Laugh at the Religious

Legal Insurrection:

Bye-Bye Brown

Shock - Obama Campaign Thinks Guy Not Running Was Most Credible Opponent 

Real Clear Politics:

Palin's Secret Weapon: New Film to Premiere in June

The Daily Caller:
GOP, What Are You So Afraid Of?

WSJ: 
This presidency flatters America to a degree that no white Republican can hope to match.

Additional News:

Results of Special Election in NY-26: Kathy Hochul (D) won with 47% against Jane Corwin (R)  43% while spoiler phony tea party candidate J. Davis which ran unsuccessfully several times as a Democrat for the very same seat got 9%.

The Question is not whether it is a “Gangster Government,” Rather Whose?

The mainstream media erupted in anger over the choice of words of an outspoken Republican representative, Michele Bachmann in naming this administration a “gangster government.”  The media launched into their typical, “how dare you attach such a false and slanderous name to this administration?” tirade

.   

Their ruckus is nearly identical to the storm that exploded at the naming of Obamacare.  In case any of you need your memory refreshed, Obamacare is a bill that’s over 2,500 pages that not a single senator or American had a chance to read, but Obama proclaimed that he knew exactly what was within that monstrous creation.  Well, if Obama wanted the country to support the bill only because of his knowledge of its contents, then it rightly deserves to be named after him!  Who else should the bill have been named after if not for “The Anointed One,” the only one with complete understanding of its contents?  If the crowds would react positively to the bill, the left would give Obama full credit for being the mastermind and composer of the bill.  Alas, the people united in their opposition against the bill, so the leftist media had to distance Obama from the unpopular parts of the bill. No matter what you call the health care bill; history will have put the responsibility squarely on Obama’s shoulder.  

In a similar vein, while the left is all riled up at the calling the current administration “gangster government,” they’re questioning is wrong.  After all, what other name is this administration worthy of?  They took control of GM, the banks, and a whole lot of other industries and then use these institutions to promote their own agenda.  Suddenly, one year before elections Government Motors announced that they will be hiring more workers thus creating additional jobs.  What a coincidence! 

In typical gangster style, the NLRB which was appointed by Obama is blocking Boeing from using the factory they built in South Carolina because it’s a “right to work” state.  Don’t you even dare suggest involving Obama’s name in this one for isn’t that the reason why he’s appointed these guys to their jobs?  

The federal government’s budget is paid by its citizens through taxes, which the government is supposed to use to keep this country safe.  Over time, the federal government has become lax about some of their duties such as keeping our southern border closed, until the states had no choice but to enforce what the feds are supposed to take care of.  Arizona passed a law to fight the endless illegal immigrants streaming into their state and wreaking havoc to their citizens and economy.  Eric Holder, Obama’s Attorney General, sued Arizona, claiming their law to be unconstitutional even though he hadn’t even read their bill.  Eric, how about focusing on implementing the federal laws and leaving the states alone?  Stop using our tax money to fight against us.  

This is not the first time Holder has acted against the safety of this country.  Shortly after being appointed as AG, Holder threatened the CIA who works tirelessly to protect the U.S., to try them for using enhanced interrogation methods on stubborn terrorists.  He likewise insisted on a civilian trial for KSM contrary to the pleas of the 9/11 victims’ families, amongst many others, who rightfully insisted he deserves a military trial and not a circus.  Eric actually wanted it to take place in Manhattan which would’ve put the city once more in the cross-hairs of terrorists still at loose.  Debra Burlingame, a sister of one of the pilots from the hijacked planes, met with Obama when he came to New York after Osama Bin Laden’s death.  She told Obama that as an attorney she knows Obama can’t tell Eric Holder what to do, but can he please tell Holder his opinion on Holder’s attempt to pursue criminal charges against CIA investigators, Obama just said “No I won’t” and walked away.  Since when is Obama shy to speak his mind?  It’s obviously an attempt of his part to keep the blame off him while having his errand boys do the dirty work for him.   

What a shocker it was to see none other than President Obama himself ganging up against the little guys.  He did try to do the following first through congress, and I guess none of his czars could claim the authority for this one, so now Obama’s getting ready to sign an executive order that will force any contractor or business currently dealing with the government or seeking to do so in the future, whether to bid for a project or to supply the government with any merchandise, to release in an online document a listing of the political contributions the company and its senior employees have made in the last two years.  This includes contributions to a third party group that uses the money for “independent expenditures or electioneering communications.”  Oh sure, and we’re supposed to believe this order is being written to promote transparency and not, as Forbes Magazine  dared naming it, Nixonian.  Does he really think we’re so stupid to believe that bids won’t be given to those that donated to his candidacy and party rather than to those that supported “the enemy”?  

Additionally, this president has appointed over thirty czars who report directly and only to him.  These czars then issue regulations that Obama couldn’t get congress to pass, thereby creating a totalitarian government without the need to remove congress.  

To sum it up, the health care bill is not Obamacare and Eric Holder’s actions have absolutely nothing with Obama either.  Neither does the EPA or his numerous czars, although he’s constantly in closed-door meetings with them.  The question conservatives therefore have to ask is who, if not Obama, is out of control? 

My Astonishment Over the Palin Aide Story

I greatly opposed Obama’s green czar Van Jones, firstly because he wanted to socialize the country through radical environmental policies which he was given the power to implement in his position as a czar. Secondly, he should’ve never been appointed as a member of the Obama administration because he supported and signed a petition calling for nationwide resistance against cops. The two above reasons qualified Van Jones to be vilified on the front page from every newspaper across the country demanding his resignation, although most news agencies failed reporting it altogether and those that did, did so only after the right has created such a storm.

I was therefore astonished that the Rebecca Mansour story is considered headline worthy all over even though she doesn’t have a position in the Palin administration, because there is no Palin administration yet. I disagree with her tweets about Erick Erickson since he rightfully stood on stage with Nikki Haley. Erick had been rallying for Haley way before Palin endorsed her. Mansour’s actions are, however, understandable. Simply put, anyone familiar with campaigns and ready to be blunt and honest will admit that a campaign manager’s job is to make their boss appear in the best light possible. Mansour wrongly knocked Erickson in an attempt to put Palin in the spotlight and she also said some really nasty stuff in her tweets, but why does that cause this to be headlines all over? She sent it from her private account without Palin’s knowledge or approval. Is anyone really that naive thinking that other candidates’ campaign staffers don’t say similar stuff when having a bad day? Why is this so newsworthy and how does this disqualify Palin from being president?

Every politician’s staffer has his moments when he loses his or her cool and does while trying to defend the image of their boss’s campaign. What I want to question, and was actually considering headlining this diary, is, let’s see the private tweets from all the other candidates’ campaign managers. Do you truly believe they are one bit better? Some of this stuff is over a year old! The person she tweeted to held onto it until the start of the campaign in an attempt to bring down Palin.

A couple of months ago when an anonymous Romney aide told the Times Magazine that Palin doesn’t qualify as a human being, the news exploded all over. But that wasn’t something the aide said in private to one person that then got released to the world. He went to a magazine with the intention of defaming Palin.

Why is it that Palin had to release thousands of emails that she sent to her husband, an unprecedented demand from any politician or candidate? Why is it that the slightest wrongdoing from anyone with the remotest contact or association to her is automatically counted as a personal blemish? Never in history has a candidate come under scrutiny to the degree Palin has. Perhaps this is because of her fearlessness in fighting the establishment and her steadfastness to her values no matter what it involves? It seems to me that the left is trying to destroy and divide the Conservative movement by targeting its spokespeople and causing rife amongst one another. Let us not allow those trying to crush us claim victory in this battle.

This article has been cross posted on redstate.com

It’s Time to teach this President a Lesson on Economics while at the Same Time confronting his Phony Energy Policy. Let’s Deal with the Hated Speculators as well.

The hypocrisy of the Obama administration and his media cohorts is simply mind boggling! Instead of being open about their destructive energy policy, they began a campaign against oil companies and speculators as a cover for the sky rocketing oil prices.

Speculators decide the price of a barrel of oil as well as the prices in many other industries such as silver, gold, and wheat. These as well as other products’ prices are calculated based on the demand versus the supply. In a similar vein, the dollar is constantly rising and falling due to the constant shifting of our economy. The hatred for oil companies and speculators for oil, however, are unparalleled. This is because gas has gone up so drastically, and the government needs a scapegoat for the people to blame.

The Obama energy policy is crashing, or better yet, never took off ground. Where are all the wind turbines and solar panels and volt cars powered by electricity (which is powered by gas) that Obama had promised? He’s against oil, coal, and nuclear, which are the three main energy sources in this country. I know Obama has said in some of his talks to the country that he supports new nuclear reactors just as in some of his speeches he claims to support coal mining and drilling for oil. All that talk is a piece of bluff. When it comes to putting those words into action, there simply is none. And when others try to build on them, he puts stumbling blocks in their path thereby revealing his true colors. He had said on the campaign trail to the San Francisco Chronicle that he wants to regulate coal mines to such a degree so that energy prices will "necessarily skyrocket"!

And who is being blamed for the current oil prices? The speculators! They create neither the demand nor the supply, so what are they guilty of? May one no longer speculate and say how much oil we have? Why should the speculators be polarized and put down for saying the truth and setting the facts straight? What happened to freedom of speech? I’m not going to name anyone as a socialist or communist, but what on earth is happening to this country?

Obama’s policy has been, “let us use every disaster to our benefit.” The accident in the gulf by BP Oil Co. led Obama to ban deep water drilling, forcing the oil companies to go elsewhere. The reason they’ve been drilling in such unbelievably deep water is because the liberals have banned them from drilling right off the shore where we have hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of oil buried. Alaska and many other states also have tons of oil waiting to be sucked out of its grounds while Obama chants “drill baby drill”, not in the U.S. but in Brazil. If we will increase the production of American produced oil, our supply of oil will increase thereby bringing a drop in price.

Regarding the complaints against oil companies at their unjustifiably large profits, last I checked America is still a capitalist country in which one may build a business to bring in a profit. For those of you that believe that the price of oil rose so dramatically because of the oil companies who want to increase their profits, Exxon makes 28 cents per $3.00 gallon of gas, while you pay in average 48 cents per gallon in taxes. The federal government makes billions of dollars a year in tax revenue without lifting a pinky to earn that money. In fact, it only puts roadblocks and mountains in the paths of the oil companies to produce more oil. Why doesn’t anyone blame the feds for the raised gas prices?

The administration pretends to support an increased energy supply and give permits to drill in a land that doesn’t have oil wells and then has the chutzpah to blame the oil companies for the higher prices. In actuality the oil companies end up wasting a lot of their profit money in research and attempts to remove oil from land with no oil, while barred from oil-loaded fields. What a two-faced administration! After Shell shelled out nearly 4 billion to drill oil off the coast of Alaska, the EPA blocked them from drilling because of some environmental fear. That’s billion with a “B”! Why should companies invest in American oil wells when they risk so much?

So yes, oil prices are decided by speculators and oil companies do make a profit, but it’s the Obama energy policies and the EPA that are guilty without the slightest doubt.
 

Take Off!!

We have officially launched our website!

However, we are still under construction so please forgive our current appearances! We will be up and running steadily within a couple of days!

Can't wait to have you all join our efforts in spreading Conservatism and conservative thinking!

How Would You Grade Obama’s Team’s Performance after Osama’s Death?

The Hollywood party has once again put up a whole show after the killing of Osama Bin Laden. 

The white house administration released a picture of Obama and his team watching the raid, a sight that we the little people are too fragile to have it released for us, only to admit afterwards that the screen went blank for over half an hour! They then pulled back their admittance and announced that the screen never went blank. Their behavior reminds me of a little kid with his hands behind his back taunting his friends about the great gift he received and how no one but him may see it or use it. (My sincerest apologies to any liberals who don’t think Osama’s dead body is a gift to the 9/11 victims’ families.) They then pretended to act surprised at the American people who were and still are enraged with their actions and demand to see for themselves the images of the mass murderer with a hole through his head. 

To heighten and dramatize the event even further and to have everyone focus their attention on his awesomeness, Obama emphasized on those forty minutes and how they were the most stressful minutes of his entire life. Perhaps the constant complaints how Obama never showed his true emotions and always acted in a detached manner such as when discussing unemployment and rising gas prices, finally made their way through his advisors’ skulls. They must’ve figured having a commander in chief quaking in his pants while sitting in his office and watching a group of SEAL’s risk their lives to defeat Osama, would perfect his image. 

His helpless national security team played the next act in the show by stressing how no one knew how to handle the situation besides for the gutsy Obama. Who appointed such helpless and indecisive people to head our national security if they can’t even decide whether or not to shoot Osama?  Mr. Gutsy himself! Perhaps he should have them fired for leaving all that sweating for him! What a worthless team they seem to be!

The Party of Slogans Needs to Get Their Facts Straight, and Not Only about Osama

The LSM and liberal half of the blogosphere has been going on and on nonstop giving the gutsy president full credit for the capturing of Bin Laden.

Now as in the past, many conservatives have tried to explain their opposing views to the left but in futility, since the left gets stuck in their platitudes and bumper stickers. They never learned the quote, “Don't judge a book by its cover.” These leftists walk around with a know-it-all attitude and don't bother learning from elders, history, or facts. The liberals’ brains are programmed to only think in slogan form. Obama captured Osama! The who, what, when, why, and where that was once considered the ABC’s of journalism has become almost nonexistent when it doesn’t conform to their ideology. Yes, Osama was captured and killed under Obama’s presidency, but what led to his death? Our intelligence forces got their lead from al Qaeda members that have undergone water boarding- an effective tool to get terrorist members to start talking. This and other interrogation methods were authorized and put in use under Bush’s presidency constantly coming under the criticism from the left until these techniques were disrupted by Obama and the left because he felt it was too harsh and offended some softhearted leftists.

This is by far not an isolated incident where the left has responded without thinking. In ’08, when the economy was at the brink of collapsing due to the housing/mortgage crisis (because mortgages were given to people who could've never afforded it and should've never gotten it) the liberals only knew and still know to say one thing: Bush is to Blame. After all, the housing market collapsed during his presidency. What they forget (intentionally or unintentionally) is what caused this crisis to begin with? Who authorized mortgages to people that were never able to afford it in the first place and why? Anyone with the slightest knowledge of history is aware that Carter started these programs and remembers when they were greatly expanded under Clinton’s era. True, while some conservatives in Congress renounced these programs at that time others didn’t out of fear having the race card thrown at them or for other reasons. However, it is clearly the Democratic Party and their ideology that supported this and similar programs. They believe in fighting for so-called equality, previously saying that it’s not fair that not everyone should be able to own their own homes and therefore forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn’t ever repay them. Nowadays, one can find them crying crocodile tears over the torture of terrorists! The conservative motto is and has always been that everyone has the freedom to choose how to lead their life and those that work hard and are successful can afford their own homes while others that are not so successful although they do or don’t work simply can’t. And the government definitely has no right or business mixing into who should or shouldn’t be getting mortgages!

The same is with the health insurance. The left cries in a pitiful voice that all shall have equal rights to health care including one who has never purchased insurance and then gets sick and is then obviously denied from purchasing a plan. What is next? If you wreck your vehicle you should be allowed to then buy insurance? Maybe after ones’ home burns down the insurance companies’ should be forced to allow you to buy a plan? What the left obviously doesn’t get is the definition of insurance and how an insurance company operates. Insurance is purchasing a policy in advance and constantly paying lesser amounts so that in the scenario that one gets sick/house burns down/car gets totaled etc. the insurance company steps in and reimburses the owner of the policy. The insurance companies have the ability to reimburse the owner of the policy only because they collect fees from so many members monthly and most people thankfully don’t have to collect their policies.

And by the way, for those of you who blame it all on the executives and CEO’s of Wall Street, yes there are some corrupt people in Wall Street as there are in just about everywhere you look, but by and large the CEO’s and executives from Wall Street’s goals are to build and expand a successful business. When one blames an entire group as in; all banks are bad, there’s obviously something wrong with that. The banks would’ve never given as one can see from the past until the federal government found it necessary to intervene. It was obvious to all who gave, received, and authorized these mortgages that the possibility of it being repaid was close to nil, however, forced to comply, the banks issued those mortgages. When the housing market collapsed out came the very same people that forced the banks into this business and portrayed them as the bad guys on Wall Street who took advantage of the poor all to make an easy dollar. Barney Frank and his cohorts’ intention were twisted from the start. They wanted to give people something they couldn’t afford claiming that it’s unfair that some do have while others don’t. Instead of trying to right this supposed wrong by trying to help these people earn more and be successful on their own, he gave them temporary ownership on something that he knew wouldn’t last. After all, this made them appear as “The party that promotes equality and justice for all,” while simultaneously creating an additional bloc of Democratic voters that remain dependent on federal aid.

Now back to Osama Bin Laden. Obama was against the “torture” of terrorists. He stopped the CIA from employing these methods and closed the black sites where these techniques were in use. Obama fought for terrorists’ rights and wanted to try KSM in Manhattan in a civil trial which would’ve given him the same rights a citizen has! So yes, Osama was captured under Obama’s watch, and he gave the ok to execute him, but that’s just about the total amount of credit that the gutsy Obama deserves. After all, he’s the one that stopped the very programs that pointed our intelligence in the right direction. The proper behavior expected from Obama at his press conference was to give credit where credit is due, to the heroic SEALS’, our tireless intelligence agency and so forth. He would’ve then heard from me and all other conservatives that yes, Osama was caught under Obama’s watch and he gets credit for that. However his entire focus was how “I” said when to shoot and “I” built up the CIA, among many other “I” statements which many were not even the truth, that the right is compelled to straighten it out for those seeking the truth. For one, he patted himself on the back for the buildup of the intelligence committees while in fact, he’s the one that put many limits on the CIA and stopped them from continuing to use the enhanced interrogation methods which were so successful in squeezing some info out of these terrorists and actually led to Osama’s death, Obama’s attorney General even threatened to investigate those that employed and allowed those techniques. And if he meant the SEALS in that statement, they have been operating for the last several decades.

It actually just hit me that if the previous president would’ve been Obama or someone with a similar ideology to Obama, many of our policies Bush had instigated would’ve never been implemented. Obama would’ve never allowed the CIA to water board those three tough guys, we wouldn’t have gotten the info which helped lead us to their leader, and Osama would still be mocking us in his mansion and plotting evil plots against the American people as he’s been doing right up to his death!

So to all of you liberals singing into your microphones and drinking over your keyboards that Obama’s path to victory in 2012 is guaranteed, let me make one thing positively clear. The American people are not going to fall for your bumper stickers and slogans such as Obama got Osama. Liberals get swept up with their emotions, but the rest of the country lets logic reign. Hope, hope, hope, is all you heard in 2010, and generally the word has positive connotations, but you know what? Saddam Hussein had great hopes, as did Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin and many others who hoped to kill, destroy and decimate entire populated areas.  I’m not comparing any of the above not to each other and definitely not to Obama. My point is that hope is not always positive, and the left should recognize that. The same is with change. Obama and his cronies jumped onto the bandwagon in Egypt because the people were fighting for change, something the American people had voted for in 2008. But as is now clear to all, is that change in Egypt is way not positive in relation to America. Mubarak was an ally, a friend to America and tough on terror, while the Muslim Brotherhood which is gaining more and more of the power in Egypt is an undercover terrorist group and is anti-American to say it softly. And this is where Obama and the left are totally wrong. He jumps at the sounds of hope and change blindly, no matter who what when or where.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, anything with a seemingly negative connotation is immediately interpreted as such. Interrogations for terrorists, oh no! Military trials for KSM and his peers, no way! It doesn’t sound compassionate enough!

The 2012 campaign will be focused not on bumper stickers, but on the important topics. Who stands at the right side of the debates offering solutions that will resolve some of the serious issues this country is facing?  An “R” before your name won’t guarantee the automatic support of your party’s support, if your ideology and voting records don’t match the people’s will. This may and probably will result in many heated primaries against RINOs, so that when the general elections arrive the choice between the candidates will be clearly defined.