Our Choice For 2012

People are constantly faced with choices in their lives. At times the choice which appears to be the correct one to make may in the long run reveal itself as not that good of a decision and the same is true vice versa. This is especially so when faced with the choice of whom to support amongst several candidates during a primary. Although some folks have become discouraged over the years when the choice they’ve selected turned out to not be as originally envisioned, it’s important to continue making decisions and choosing the candidate which appears best at the time. At other times, one choice is obviously negative and although the other option may not be perfect, it is definitely the better of the two - as explained all the way below.

Since no-one is perfect and it is impossible to agree with one’s candidate/supported official 100% of the time, even when making a correct choice it is often accompanied with many gray areas which at times overshadow the white. Prior to the 2010 elections Arlen Specter, Republican Senator of purple-blue Pennsylvania was approaching a reelection and wavered on a decision before ultimately shocking and angering Republicans when he cast his vote in favor of Obama’s stimulus plan. This was the first time he sided with the Democrats on a major bill and his action resulted in conservatives and Tea Partiers to declare war on Specter at every cost. Their mission appeared noble and correct, and Pat Toomey is now the Republican Senator of Pennsylvania after barely winning the general election with a single point in the 2010 mid-term elections; a year in which Republicans swept victories across the country. He is surely a better representative of conservative values in the Senate than Specter had been.

However, the price tag it had cost for conservatives to place Toomey in the Senate had turned out be unexpectedly sky-rocketing expensive and resulted in many to question whether the goal was worth the consequences. When Specter saw he would be unable to win the Republican Primary, he made a mad dash to save his seat, switched parties, and provided the Democrats with the 60th vote which led to the passage of their infamous Obamacare. Thus, although we now have a solid conservative in the Senate who replaced a RINO (not an outright liberal) we are now weighed down with Obamacare which threatens to overtake a sixth of the private sector and is currently awaiting judgment on its constitutionality by the Supreme Court Justices.

Incidentally, two of our current conservative Supreme Court Justices, Roberts and Alito, are currently on the bench thanks to Specter, after Senator Santorum had made the choice to support Specter for reelection in ’04 when he was challenged in a primary by Pat Toomey. At the time, Senator Santorum was faced with the difficult choice whether he should support the incumbent Senator Specter and his senior colleague who although was a less conservative choice than Toomey, was far more probable to be successful in keeping the seat red during an election where the balance on Senate was up in the air and anti-Republican emotions were thick. This surmise turned out pretty accurate since Toomey barely managed to eke out a 1% victory in 2010 when the public was outraged at Obamacare and looked favorably upon the Tea Party candidates.

Maintaining the Republican control of the Senate was by far not the only factor which Santorum focused on when making his decision. He was also strongly aware that Bush would be nominating at least two and possibly three justices for the Supreme Court and that Specter who headed the judiciary committee would be extremely influential whether Bush’s proponents would ultimately be approved by the Senate. Santorum therefore opted to support Specter after receiving his word that he would support the conservative candidates for the Supreme Court which Bush would propose, something which will influence U.S. history for years to come as is visible now with the Obamacare hearings.

Santorum’s support of Specter indeed resulted in two strong conservatives on the bench, although it may have likely cost him the nomination in the current GOP presidential primary. In addition to having been hammered for supporting Specter in’04 for actions taken years later and were impossible to foretell six years earlier, his act resulted in Specter’s former opponent and the current Conservative Senator of Pennsylvania and Santorum’s home-state, Pat Toomey, to act favorably towards Santorum’s opponent – the author of Romneycare. In fact, immediately after Santorum announced he was suspending his campaign yesterday, Toomey released an official endorsement endorsing Romney, causing many to speculate whether the endorsement would occur regardless prior to Pennsylvania’s primary and whether it was one of the causes which led to the Santorum campaign suspension.

The above two examples clearly illustrate how when one makes a choice which appears to be good, it isn’t necessarily all good as is later revealed. It shouldn’t however leave us disheartened for ultimately many good also emerged from those choices. Additionally, many decisions are pretty clear-cut where one option is definitely bad. Even if the other one doesn’t necessarily turn out to be all that good, we still know it is better than the alternative.

Supporting a candidate doesn’t necessarily mean that one agrees with all they’ve done or stand for, although a candidate usually will have some supporters who do identify with them to an extreme. Many supporters of a specific candidate usually support the candidate because they identify with them on a single issue while many others don’t even have that. They simply support a certain candidate because he’s the better choice than the alternative. This was visible numerous times amongst this primary and is very typical. After Palin chose not to run, a majority of her supporter split between Cain and Newt. After Bachmann, Cain, and Perry exited the race, their supporters too turned to find a second or third ro fourth choice amongst the remaining candidates. This led to the momentum to shift from Perry to Cain to Newt to Santorum as voters were forced to reevaluate the field once it was clear the person they supported wasn’t running at all or any longer. I too have first supported Palin, and when she announced she wasn’t running though long and hard until turning to support Santorum approximately a month prior to the Iowa caucuses.

With Santorum now having suspended his campaign, the primary is sort of wrapped up despite the many voters including myself who haven’t yet received the opportunity to cast their ballots. Unlike the primary where the choices were plentiful - at least at the start, the general will boil down to two choices; four more years for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. Obama has already been in office long enough for everyone with an open mind to recognize the damage he’s wrought upon this country. Obama is clearly not only the bad choice but an utter disaster for this country. Any alternative will be far better and less to the left than the Marxist Obama.

Romney’s Attorney General will not be someone like Eric Holder who looks the other way when the Black Panther sets a price-tag of a million dollars on Zimmerman’s head and refuses to take responsibility or even answer basic questions regarding Fast & Furious. Nor will Romney chose the dopey Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services, the unqualified leftist Janet Napolitano as his Secretary of Homeland Security, and so on and so forth.

The choice now has boiled down between two people; Obama and Romney and it is time to unite under the better of the two – Mitt Romney. There are many who have announced that they refuse to vote for Romney and are planning to sit out the 2012 election, all the while talking of setting him up with a conservative in 2016. It is okay to talk of 2016, but only after the 2012 elections have taken place and giving Romney a chance at the presidency, if he reaches it. He may or may not make a good president but he’s not a definite Obama, and if conservatives will dislike him so greatly we can challenge him in 2016 just as we would put out a conservative against Obama.

We conservatives have proven our power the last couple of years by successfully challenging lots of incumbents in primaries and Romney is aware of it.. He won’t want to face a primary from his own party and will probably go along with whatever conservatives in Congress present him. Obama, on the other hand, is aware it’ll be his last term and will have no need to appease to any voters except for his leftist base who will replace Karl Marx with Barack Obama. If we thought he was radical in his first term, a second Obama term will be so much more disastrous it defies description. I plead with you fellow conservatives, w can look ahead to the future but at the same time we MUST REMEMBER THE HERE AND NOW AND MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR 2012. WE MUST SAY NO TO OBAMA AND THUS SAY YES TO MITT ROMNEY.

Shocker! Mitt Romney Credited Obama in 2009 for Protecting our Financial System

Last week Wednesday - the day he received Jeb Bush’s endorsement - Mitt Romney had said the following:

"I keep hearing the president say he's responsible for keeping the country out of a Great Depression," Romney said at a town hall in Arbutus, Maryland. "No, no, no, that was President George W. Bush and [then-Treasury Secretary] Hank Paulson."

Nice to hear Romney give credit to Bush, however, he’s said the contrary only a short while after Obama became president and was extremely popular across a majority of the electorate. In remarks Romney made at the National Republican Senatorial Committee Spring Dinner on 03/31/09 he said the following:

“But I also think it is important for us to nod with the President when he’s right. He will not always be wrong. And he’s done some things that I agree with…. I think it’s a good thing for him to protect our financial system. It took Secretary Geithner a long, long time to figure how he was going to do that, and actually he has zeroed in on the bank rescue plan.”

Admittedly, majority of his speech was “severely conservative” since he was addressing a conservative audience. We know, however, that Mitt can talk conservative talk in the morning and switch to a liberal message several hours later. 

Coincidentally, the above comments came on Etch-A-Sketch Day, further highlighting the only consistent thing about Mitt Romney; his inconsistency.

Critics of Senator Santorum’s Economic Plan are entitled to their Own Opinions but not their Own Facts

A considerable number of conservatives have expressed criticism at Rick Santorum’s manufacturing plan. Incidentally, many of them have a horse in the race – someone other than Santorum - and that’s pretty understandable and perfectly fine. It’s still a free country where people may publicly disagree with the president and anyone else they so much as desire. When taking someone’s plan to task, though, it would be most beneficial to be factual especially if attempting to promote a rival candidate. If one’s disagreement is full of falsehoods and non-factual information then not only won’t they be successful in convincing many that their argument is correct, they present themselves to the public as possibly uninformed and more likely to be purposely misleading.

For those unfamiliar with Santorum’s "Made in America" Plan it is one portion of his economic plan and is in itself a lengthy and detailed plan. The Plan includes but is not limited to pushing for a balanced budget amendment, removing unnecessary burdensome regulations, granting permission to increase of energy production, providing authorization for the Keystone Pipeline, simplifying the tax code, reducing taxes to the Reagan-era pro-growth top tax rate, and completely eliminating the corporate income tax for manufacturers from 35% to 0%. For the complete details please check out the link provided above.

It is the last item I’ve mentioned – the elimination of the corporate income tax for manufacturers - at which many have expressed their opposition and for a variety of reasons. I’ve decided to review the criticisms and then explain the facts surrounding this one aspect of Santorum’s economic plan, since lots of untruths are circulating.

A popular argument is the notion that Santorum is playing class warfare by favoring one group over the rest of the country. A second misconception which has circulated widely is that his plan favors big unions. A third criticism often put out is that the problem manufacturers face is not increased taxes but burdensome regulations and that Santorum’s plan doesn’t address it. A fourth claim is that this is a minor tinkering of the tax code which will result in nothing but increased taxes in another sector to make up for the loss in federal income.

All of these complaints appear quite serious, except that none of them are based on the facts.

Firstly, Santorum’s plan is unrelated to class warfare. Class warfare is pitting the poor against the rich, employees against employers, and so forth. Class warfare is usually achieved through placing a strong emphasis on the bounty others have and comparing it to the state of those who have less in order to create strong emotions of envy and unfairness in those with less. The politician then promises to punish those better off – such as taxing the rich guys – while extending help to the little guy via handouts aka tax-cuts/tax credits by spending other people’s money in order to “make things fair.”

Secondly, Santorum’s plan doesn’t turn employees against employers or anything of a similar nature. It simply eliminates the corporate income tax for manufacturers of all sizes and stripes as an incentive for manufacturing companies which have left the USA and gone to countries with fewer burdensome regulations and lower taxes to return to American shores. His plan will once again make the USA a country where it is financially worthwhile to manufacture goods rather than making them elsewhere and then having the goods shipped over. The elimination of the corporate income tax for manufacturers thus benefits the owners of manufacturing companies in order to benefit the overall economy of the US. The economy will receive a much-needed boost since the creation of many businesses will lead to the employment of millions who’ve previously watched their jobs be shipped overseas.

Santorum has put forward an actual plan (and not a twitter hash-tag like Newt’s 2.50) for a sector of the economy that’s crumbling and shrinking at a time when million are unemployed and many have despaired of finding a job. Santorum has also clearly explained why manufacturing requires additional reductions over local retailers and other companies who will also watch their taxes being cut. This is because your local pharmacy isn’t disappearing to China and neither will your grocer. It is manufacturing and jobs that are disappearing from this country and in order to be competitive with the rest of the world one has to look at the global rate and adjust accordingly.

This is the exactly what Obama and the left so strongly oppose; the trickle-down theory which keeps government out of the lives of the people.

Those who describe Santorum’s plan as pro-Union have portrayed his plan as though he were out to specifically favor union workers/bosses over the rest. This is completely untrue and those using this argument are either uninformed or purposefully misleading. The only method for unions to benefit from Santorum's plan is if they are successful in signing up more workers into their membership. This may occur since Santorum’s plan will lead to a greatly increased number of American workers, yet is far from guaranteed to happen since Santorum has also promised as a president to push for “right-to-work” on a national level.

Even if unions do increase their membership levels, then that in its own right will be proof of the success of Santorum’s plan. It will provide clear data that removing government from the picture has led to business owners hiring many workers, thus creating a considerable number of new jobs and new union members. This may indirectly lead to benefit unions but so be it if that’s one of the results of an improved economy and millions of new jobs. Unlike Democrats who only seek to benefit specific voting blocs and political donors, Santorum is out to create equal opportunity for all Americans.

Manufacturing currently costs over twenty percent higher in the USA than in other countries excluding labor costs because of regulations and taxes. This has caused and continues to cause many manufacturers to flee the country. Those who attack Rick’s plan to eliminate the corporate income tax for manufacturers as a worthless solution while explaining that the key to increasing manufacturing is cutting regulation, have proven that they are unable to walk and talk simultaneously. The argument displays their ignorance and lack of research in a day and age when information is available at one’s fingertips. Or worse yet, some are attempting to purposely omit Santorum’s heavy focus on regulation, somehow thinking that if they ignore it then it doesn’t exist.

For the sake of those truly uninformed, here’s a link to a video in which Rick Santorum speaks to voters in which he labeled the removal of all unnecessary regulations as Step Number One and only then continued to Step Number Two which is the reduction of the manufacturing tax to zero.

Additionally, Santorum is the only GOP candidate to have opposed from the start the burdensome regulations the government enforced on the people based on the bogus global warming facts. His support for increased energy production through additional drilling, nuclear energy plants, and all other forms of safe energy had never wavered. Newt and Romney, though, supported government regulation - as recently and to the far extreme as having supported Obama’s Cap & Trade.

As for the last misinformed case against Santorum’s plan, his Made in America plan does indeed eliminate the corporate income tax for manufacturers. In today’s topsy-turvy world where Obama “cut taxes” for people who pay no taxes, cutting taxes is seen as the government sending (back) a check to people/companies and thus thought of as a federal expense. This is not the case here and whenever true tax cuts occur. Tax cuts aren’t refunds. They simply allow the company to keep more/all of the money which they’ve earned. As for the government making up the money they’ve received until now through the raising of taxes of other groups, Santorum’s plan includes tax cuts for ALL as can be viewed here. He thus won’t raise the taxes of another group because he’s cutting everyone’s taxes.

The question of how the government will manage with fewer taxes is null and for two reasons: Firstly, lower taxes leads to increased government revenue since it jumpstarts the economy. Even though manufacturers will pay zero % on corporate income tax, the tremendous growth of newly employed people who will pay the new lowered rate of taxes, will lead to considerable federal income.

Secondly, and equally importantly, a large focus of Santorum’s economic plan is to cut government spending with five trillion in the next five years thus reducing the amount the government will require to operate. Santorum plans to shrink continuously the size of government while working with all states to accept a Balanced Budget Amendment. Newt supporters who use this argument of “how will the government manage with reduced funding” when discussing Santorum’s plan is pretty ironic when considering their applause for Newt for similarly saying that he’ll cut taxes and reduce government expenses to match the money that comes in.

Santorum has had the guts in the past to create actual reform – he had written the successful welfare reform – and continues to present actual details in the actions he will take. He doesn’t just throw platitudes and empty promises, but addresses all the issues facing this nation including but not limited to the economy. Santorum focuses on the importance of energy Independence, the need to bring jobs back to America, and so much more including the freedom –grabbing Obamacare. The success of his campaign therefore isn’t hinged solely on the price of gasoline as Newt’s is, or the unemployment levels, as Romney’s is. He can successfully battle Obama on every topic since he’s the only one who provides the contrast to Obama we so desperately need. 



 

Romney Endorsers Ignore his 4-Year Governing Record in Massachussets

It is fascinating to watch more and more politicians come out and endorse Romney as his momentum builds and without a single exception they fail to include in their support for Romney the slightest mention of his governing record. They will tout his electability, organization, private business record, and so on, yet totally skip over his political experience despite it being the basis of his presidential run.

The presidential elections are about electing a future president; someone who will lead the country in the proper direction. Someone who will govern by putting the interest of the people before their own personal interests or the interests of their friends and donors. In observing and studying one's prior behavior as a politician, one can glimpse a very real image of how that individual would govern on a larger scale.

Mitt Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts is so awfully and horribly terrible even his most ardent supporters and endorsers refuse to touch it. In addition to having created his signature-stamp RomneyCare which forced individuals to either purchase health care or face a fine, he also forced religious institutions to provide contraception despite it being contrary to their beliefs! These are outright violations of the basic G-d given freedoms which the constitution demands the government provide protection for all people!

Romney also repeatedly raised taxes on hard-working already overtaxed MA residents, supported Planned Parenthood, and signed the legislature which changed the definition of marriage which had been around ever since mankind was created. He also failed to take any definitive action to crack down on the increasing number of illegals in his state, resulting in illegals having found employment in his very own home!

Although the Romney endorsers tout his business record as the symbol that a Romney presidency will create economic growth, the state of Massachusetts under Romney's leadership ranked 47th in job creation! This once again is proof that although Romney may have been successful in the business world – a world where one is supposed to put their own interests first – he was an absolute failure in the political world – a world where the interests of the people are supposed to be of first and foremost importance.

Mitt Romney's failure to distinct between the business world and the political world is precisely why he was a disaster of a Governor who didn't even bother running for reelection since his chances were nil. Instead of removing unnecessary burdens places on job creators and employees, Romney's entire focus consisted of creating additional connection to corrupted Washington officials so he could receive federal funding to provide payback for his cronies.

Let's not make the same mistake the people of Massachusetts have made in 2002! Say no to Romney – the Governor who did no good!

Can Romney Really Gloat over his 3.2% Victory in his Home-State? Imagine Obama winning Illinois with a Similar Margin!

Under the Obama-nation we currently reside in, one often hears the following question being asked; do you feel we are better off now that Obama has increased our debt by an additional four trillion dollars? Has the economy become so much better that it was worthwhile spending all those trillions? The answer to both are of course a resounding no.

I've got a similar question to Mitt Romney but with a slightly different twist. You've won Michigan, your home-state with barely a bit more than 3% after you and your super-PACS have spent millions of dollars in negative ads. Do you consider the results favorable? Is this the path you wish to put forward until the convention? Have these results assuaged your guilty conscience for the countless blatant mis-truths you've engaged in at every debate and opportunity possible? You've sent utterly misleading robo-calls using quotes from people that they had said in 2008 as though they were current, and your ads had more holes than truths in them; will you learn anything from the weak victory in your home-state? Or will you continue in your acts of hypocrisy and falsehood?

You seem be unaware of this, Mitt, but the actions you've engaged in can best be described using one word; hypocrisy. Since you and your supporters are oblivious to your hypocrisy, here are two quick examples in a one-time attempt to educate.

Firstly, one of your most compelling cases you've got against Santorum is his reelection loss by 18 points in 06. It sure sounds like a strong point … when you omit all the information such as that his staunch support for the war and his outspoken record against Iran caused the left to paint him in negative ads as a warmonger during a time when anti-Bush and anti-war sentiments were skyrocketing high in liberal Pennsylvania. Yes - Santorum lost his seat. However, the cause behind it is actually a very positive one. It proved that Santorum preferred to lose his seat and job rather than losing his principles.

Mitt, you can focus all you wish on Santorum's loss in 06 but here are the facts - which don't change no matter how many times you lie about them. Santorum had repeatedly proven capable of winning – he was elected twice to the House and twice to the Senate by running as a conservative in a blue state. In fact, the same time Santorum won an election, you - Mitt, lost your first run for Senate as a liberal in the liberal state of Massachussets with the same sweeping loss that Santorum lost his fifth election. 

Additionally, Santorum, the conservative, was reelected by the Pennsylvanian people to serve their interests in Washington for many more years than you were able to keep your governor's seat despite (or perhaps because of) your lack of consistency and principle.

Secondly, when a guy tattles on another guy for shoplifting while his own pockets are bulging with stolen items, his actions are far worse for he's not only a thief but a hypocrite too. So too, when you've pounded Santorum for supporting the “No Child Left Behind” Act in ads, debates, and speeches one would've thought you were one of those who opposed it from the start or at least had not had a public opinion at the time. The truth, though, revealed itself to be quite differently. 

Videos surfaced of not one but three separate instances where you praised the bill at the time. Your actions are thus far worse than Santorum for he has admitted he's erred with his vote, apologized for it, and vows to repeal it. You, on the other hand, pretended to be righteous while simultaneously accusing him of doing that which you yourself have done. What a shame and disgrace.

Whether Santorum ultimately wins or loses the primary he will be a winner for he will be remembered and respected as a dignified principled individual. You - Mitt, on the other hand, will unfortunately be looked upon as a serial hypocrite, liar, and thug even if you will eventually secure the title of GOP nominee or/and president.

With Rick Santorum as the GOP Nominee Obama will be forced to stop Barking over his favorite Bones

The Democrat Party has developed a whole slew of slogans during the last several decades which they’ve used to paint the Republican Party and all freedom-loving Americans. Obama has overindulged in his usage of these slogans during his years on the political scene and specifically in the oval office.

Ranking at the top of the list, is the absurd claim that the Republican Party is comprised the rich bankers and Wall Street magnates while the Democrat Party favors the lower and middle income brackets. I doubt a week had gone by without Obama having railed out against the big oil companies or the banks since he’s been sworn into office. An election between Obama and Santorum will be as disastrous for Obama as a malfunctioning teleprompter, or worse. Obama will be forced to put aside his number one weapon against the Republican Party or risk appearing foolish, unintelligent, and hypocritical (though I’ll admit it doesn’t take much for Obama to appear so.)

How will Obama be able to play the “GOP and the evil rich Wall Street are one” card if he was the one who supported TARP as a presidential candidate and who bailed out many large companies - most notably GM - during his presidency while Santorum openly opposed TARP in 2008 and all of Obama’s bailouts? How will Obama play his beloved card against Rick Santorum who truly enjoys talking to and mingling with the average American since he is just like them when he’s held a secret Hollywood-themed Halloween Party in 2009 staged by film director Tim Burton and actor Johnny Depp while Americans suffered from the recession and were told by Obama that “everyone must sacrifice”?

How will Obama lump Santorum with the millionaires and billionaires when Obama has earned far more money and is far more qualified than Santorum for the “millionaire” title? (Obama has earned over 5 million in ‘0 while Santorum earned less than 1 million in ’09.) How will Obama be able to blast Santorum for buddying around with Wall Street when Obama and Warren Buffet enjoy an extremely close relationship? If Obama does use his class warfare rhetoric, how will he explain his campaign fundraisers at which attendees paid tens of thousands for the honor of dining with him and other famous liberal tycoons while the majority of Santorum donations for his campaign coffer are from average Americans who donated a small sum of money?

Michelle Obama has just completed her 16th extravagant vacation within three years - since her husband has taken office! Additionally, when vacationing with her husband - the president, she had often opted to travel separately, with each of those separate trips having amounted to additional hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars! Why should she waste an extra day in the boring White House when the taxpayers’ generosity is limitless? It’s outrageous no matter which way one attempts to spin it. However, when comparing the actions of the Obamas to the Santorum campaign which is run on a shoestring budget and doesn’t even own a campaign bus, the contrast is all the more striking.

Santorum strongly identifies with blue-collar middle income earners and is indeed the only Republican candidate who can successfully crumble Obama’s false slogans, especially the nonsensical “Republicans are the party of millionaires and billionaires.” With Santorum as the Republican nominee, the tables will turn against Obama and the Santorum team will correctly be able to hold Obama accountable for messing up the free market by bailing out select big businesses instead of allowing them to face the consequences of their actions – as the rest of the private sector does.

With Rick Santorum as the Republican nominee, Obama will also lose his upper-hand with the American workers for he won’t be able to employ the usual “GOP is anti-unions and against the struggling American factory worker” rant. If Obama does try it, Rick Santorum can point to his history as a representative of Pennsylvania where he followed the people’s will and expressed support for the unions. Even further than that, Santorum is the only one who can tout an anti-amnesty record under presidents Clinton and Bush.

Rick will therefore be able to use Obama’s pro-amnesty talks he engages in when pandering to the Hispanic vote and turn them into a giant negative amongst the majority of the public. All Santorum has to, is play his own record next to Obama’s speeches and throw in the figures of the current unemployment rate versus the estimated number of illegals currently working illegitimately. With millions of Americans unemployed, Obama will be told to wave goodbye to term number two.

All of the above alone is enough to seriously impede Obama’s reelection campaign, for his entire presidency had been based on class warfare; pitting the poor against the rich. In employing it against Santorum, though, Obama will notice his tactics backfire straight at him and he’ll have to scramble to create new slogans and rhetoric without the benefit of having had it drilled into the minds of the American people for the past three years or longer. There’s more though.

When Obama will remind everyone of his generosity via Obamacare and how it’ll spread more “liberties” for all, Rick Santorum can whip out his anti-mandates speech he held in 1994 and remind the American people that if Obamacare isn’t repealed within a short while then any individual who cannot afford or chooses not to purchase insurance will be slapped with a fine.

Similarly, when Obama will pride himself in his aid for the “Arab Spring” while lamenting at the unforeseen radicalization, Santorum will be the only one capable of tackling him for supporting the radical extremists in Egypt over our former ally Mubarak. This is so because Santorum was, once again, part of the very few who warned us about the true intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood. Santorum will also be able to take Obama to task over his un-American and damaging apologies he’d delivered to Iran and the Muslim world which greatly weakened our standing in the world, since Santorum had repeatedly spoken as a Senator about the dangers of Iran.

Another disadvantage for Obama in facing a Santorum campaign will be the likely loss of the delegate-rich swing states of Pennsylvania – Santorum’s home state, and Ohio – which is nearby Pennsylvania. Obama hails from liberal Illinois while Biden hails from equally liberal Delaware and they don’t have any advantages in any of the swing-states which are critical for a victory as Santorum does.

On the other hand, Santorum is leading strongly in both PA & OH in the primary, and is the only one capable of beating Obama in the general in these states and not only because he’s from the Northeast. Santorum’s economic plan which will cut taxes across the board and eliminate all taxes for manufacturers in order to bring jobs back to the American people is extremely popular in these and other manufacturing states.

Although many are attempting to portray social issues as Santorum’s greatest weakness, in truth, Santorum has got the overhand on that too. When Obama ran in 2008 he was forced to support traditional marriage in order to have a chance in winning states like Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and just about any state from the South. Mostly though, Obama had stressed in 2008 that social issues aren’t important and he’d convinced many Independent voters who value traditional marriage to cast their vote for him. If Obama will abandon his ’08 stance and decide to focus his campaign on social issues by falsely portraying Rick as a radical, he will find his already shrinking support totally collapse in the above-mentioned competitive battle states since they are deeply religious states.

This was clearly visible when it was discovered recently that Obamacare will require for religious institutions to provide contraception despite it being contrary to their religious values. An overwhelming majority of the country opposed Obama and it greatly strengthened Santorum who wisely focused on the aspect that it is contradictory to the G-d given rights the country has been built on.

From the start of his 2008 campaign straight through this current day, Obama has blamed all the country’s troubles on the evil Republicans while savoring in the role of the savior. He’d admonished the Republicans to keep quiet while he mopped up their mess and required from them to sit in the back while he drove them out of the ditch. With Rick Santorum as the Republican nominee Obama will discover the ground has shifted and Obama will be forced to sit in the back, eat the effects of his own actions, and hopefully, ultimately hand over the mop and the keys to someone far more capable and experienced. 



 

Rick Santorum = a Carbon Copy of Barack Obama! Except ...

I’ve noticed many folks have been comparing Rick Santorum to Barack Obama and other pro-life Democrats.

Such a comparison is worthy of “the weirdest claim made yet against Rick Santorum” award. They seem to have forgotten that there are no true pro-life Democrats for even Democrat “staunch pro-lifer” Bart (Mark) Stupak had agreed to put his pro-life stance aside in order to provide Obama with the final vote for Obamacare. Those who compare Santorum to Democrats like Obama have also obviously not watched this video in which Senator Santorum fought against federal funding for partial-birth abortion in 1998.


Social issues aside, let us see just how similar Santorum is to Barack Obama and the Democrat Party. We all agree that to beat Obama one must be able to draw a strong contrast between their record and Obama’s. Is Santorum able to do that?

Let’s check it out:

TARP - Government Bailouts

Rick Santorum had opposed TARP right from the start. He didn’t merely pay lip-service in opposition, but railed out against it several months later in ’09 at CPAC.

TARP had received support not only from then-candidate Obama but also by a majority of the GOP establishment including Newt and Mitt. Santorum also opposed Obama’s stimulus, the auto bailout, and the Fannie-Freddie bailout.

Needless to say, Obama is the King of the Bailouts.

Next.

Government Reform – Reducing Spending and Dependency on Government

In the 1990s, when he was only a freshman Senator, Rick Santorum was a leading author on the bill that completely overhauled the country’s welfare system.

Yes, you read that right. As a Congressman, Santorum had started the fight for welfare reform in the House, and once in the Senate he combined forces with his old buddies, actually wrote the bill, and successfully fought the left and ensured its passage. To give credit when credit is due, Newt who was speaker of the House at the time, voted in support of the bill.

Santorum also voted for the Freedom to Farm Act in 1996 that started the process of ending direct farm subsidies. When Congress decided that it couldn’t live up to that promise, it voted to re-establish the subsidies in 2002 with the Farm Security Act, a bill that Santorum rightly opposed. Santorum voted for a balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto in 1995.

Santorum strongly believes in a bottom-up economy and in keeping government out of the private sector in most cases.

Obama obviously strongly opposes all reform to the federal government since, as we all know, he wants us all dependent on government for our health-care and every-day needs. He has successfully vastly increased the number of individuals collecting unemployment, Medicaid, and Food Stamps.

Okay, they clearly differ on role of government. All right, let’s try something else.

Health Care Mandates – Obamacare

Oops! Here’s a video from Rick Santorum in 1994 where he clearly and passionately spoke against government mandating individuals into buying health-care or anything else for that matter. This is a direct quote from Rick Santorum spoken in 1994 when health-care mandates were on the table;

“I think what the role of the federal government is to provide opportunity for everyone to get what they want, to live their dreams and not to dictate what everybody should have.”

Sounds like Obama to you? Not to me. Let’s also remember that in 1994 both Newt and Romney amongst many other Republicans had heavily supported and pushed for health-care mandates.

Still convinced he’s a carbon copy of Obama at least in some way? Let’s continue!

Global Warming Hoax

The entire Democrat Party has adopted “saving the environment from us bad people” as the reason they’ve been created, and many Republicans have also fallen for the hoax including … Mitt and Newt once again. Newt in a debate with John Kerry actually took the more liberal position than Kerry, arguing that government intervention is necessary in order to effectively regulate the environment while Kerry wanted the private sector to do it!

Rick Santorum, though, is included in the minority of people who had always opposed global warming, as is Rush Limbaugh and many other prominent conservatives. His record shows he’s always voted against it. As the years go by, increasingly more information keeps on surfacing which prove that global warming was a hoax from the start, and even a decade or two ago one was able to see the truth if they searched for it.

Barack Obama and his henchman in the EPA are still in the belief that the polar bears will die if you don’t use their energy-saving light-bulbs.

Polar opposites indeed.

However, Santorum MUST have something in common with Obama; I’ve seen folks here on Red State say so! All right; let’s move on!

Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants

Hmm. Santorum opposed Bush’s amnesty plan, something a majority of the GOP establishment had supported, and had received an A+ rating for his stance against Amnesty. Newt, no longer in the Congress, attempted to convince members of Congress to vote for it.

Obama’s stance? In 2010, during the mid-term primaries, Obama sneakily whispered to Latinos that they should punish their enemies on November 2nd. He also believes he’s done all he can to secure the border according to original Republican demands, and that Republicans won’t be satisfied until he puts a moat filled with alligators at the U.S.-Mexican border.

We covered all the major issues of the day, and they don’t seem to agree on anything!

Oh, wait!

National Security

Surely they think the same in regard to the defense of this country? Umm, Obama wants to cut our nuclear heads to a number lower than that of China. He has bowed and apologized to all our enemies, while alienated and insulted all of our allies.

What about Santorum? Rick Santorum has warned about Iran over a decade ago and is very clear with who our enemies are and who our friends are. He doesn’t think Ahmadinejad will love us if we’d only bow a bit deeper and understands the importance in keeping a positive relationship with our allies like Great Britain, Canada, and Israel.

Sorry, strike that one out as well.

Perhaps they are similar in position on the next vitally important topic? Let’s see!

Energy Independence

Obama is doing all he can to create jobs yet refuses to allow the Keystone Pipeline to go into effect due to environmental concerns. Never mind that we already have numerous pipelines running beneath our grounds for many years. Who cares that it would employ tens of thousands of unemployed Americans? What difference does it make to Obama that it would help lower the price at the pump or that we’d be less reliant on foreign oil from hostile countries?

Where is Rick Santorum in this picture? Rick Santorum’s grandfather worked in a coal mine in Pennsylvania and Santorum speaks strongly about the importance for energy independence for the multitude of reasons involved. Santorum is aware of the dangers in being reliant on foreign oil which funds terrorism. He is also highly attuned to the need of manufacturing good here in the US, and explains that energy creation has been and can be once again a major source of jobs.

He’d therefore grant permission to execute the Keystone Pipeline immediately and also increase permits for Hydraulic fracturing, offshore drilling, onshore drilling, and everything else that will help us become energy independent and isn’t really dangerous; not “liberal/environmental-style” dangerous.

What’s left?

War against Terror

Obama refused to credit the surge in Iraq for its success even when directly questioned about it and the facts were clear to (almost) all. In Honduras, President Obama joined Chavez and Castro in siding with the bad guys. In Iraq and Afghanistan he provides timetables that fit his political calendar ignoring the advice of his generals who are on the battlefield.

Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and helped oust our decades-long ally Mubarak who helped keep the region stable in the name of Democracy yet looked the other way when Iranian protestors pleaded for freedom from Ahmadinejad.

On the flip side, Rick Santorum supported the war in Iraq and Afghanistan from the start and expressed strong support for the surge which Obama and Newt opposed. He warned of the dangers of allowing terrorist reaction go unanswered and warned about the threat Al Qaeda poses to the U.S. several months prior to 9/11. He criticized Obama’s handling of Iran and Egypt as appeasement for terrorism and stifling of Democracy.

Sorry but I raise my hands in defeat. Santorum is the direct opposite of Obama and not at all similar to the Democrats. Those who have made this silly comparison have also called Obama a socialist and the worst president ever. Making such a comparison minimizes all the bad Obama has done, for it leads one to think that perhaps Obama not so bad-after all … he’s like Santorum.

False.

Leon H. Wolf from Red State and many others have also been greatly bothered by Santorum’s lack of executive experience in comparison to Romney’s 4 years of Governor in Massachusetts. Executive experience is truly an important asset to any candidate but in this scenario it needs a bit of closer inspection. Romney ran for Senate and lost. He then ran for Governor, won one term, and didn’t run for reelection since he knew he wouldn’t win. He was an executive but not a very successful one.

Rick Santorum ran for the House, and won twice. As a freshman and newcomer to the House, Santorum was appalled at the level of corruption taking place, and he together with six others stood up and exposed the actions of senior members of BOTH PARTIES in what become known as the “Gang of Seven.” Compare Santorum’s actions to that of the over three hundred others who either took a part in the corruption or turned a blind eye towards it. Santorum then ran for the Senate and won twice as a conservative in the blue state of Pennsylvania. In the Senate he took the initiative and led the fight against the left in many scenarios including stopping funding for partial-birth abortion, reforming welfare, and reforming social security.

Rick Santorum is human, has made mistakes in the past, and isn't perfect. No one is. However, after reviewing all of the above, it is clear he provides the strongest contrast to Barack Obama and I wish to go as far from Obama as possible. This therefore leads me to support Rick Santorum in the primary and definitely in the general election.




 

What Act has Obama Done Which Outshines his being the 4th best President in this Nation's History?

It is customary for every prestigious newspaper, magazine, and website to declare a person and event of the year.

Being that this is the first time time we've reached the end of the year period after opening this blog, naming our first “event of the year” carries extra importance.

After much careful contemplation and serious indecision we decided that since the year was filled with way too many award-deserving moments, we will present an original twist to the same-old tradition. In addition to an “event of the year”, which in itself took endless deliberate deliberation to the extent that the final results were available only on New Year's, we will present “the most significant moment of Obama's presidency.”

Some of your eyebrows surely shot up at that since he's still got over a year in the oval office until his first and hopefully last term is up. However, we can continue with the naming of the most momentous moment, since 2012 will consist of one extended campaign stump for the Obama team. Besides, we are confident enough that nothing his administration will accomplish nor any event that will occur will be large enough to overshadow our selection.

The event we chose has brought great benefit to the entire world, environment, and the United States of America. It unified conservatives and liberals alike as they watched the event unfold with awe.

No, it is not the capture and death of Osama Bin Laden, for that is not an Obama accomplishment. Osama's death was a military accomplishment despite the fact that Obama is constantly taking credit for the success of the mission. The only aspect of the riddance of Bin Laden that Obama can be credited for, is honoring the murderer with a Muslim ceremony prior to his body being dumped into the sea, although he tried to keep it a secret.

Similarly, Obama's bow to the king of Saudi Arabia and to other Muslim leaders have not made the mark since it oddly angered conservatives and offended the other world leaders who received a mere handshake.

The return of Churchill's bust was a close finalist, yet it too did not hold up to the rigorous standards since it surprisingly irked those sensitive British folks.

Obama's haughty “I won the election” to McCain during “bipartisan” talks almost won the award, but we've settled with a happening which was not too much humbler and that has also taught the American public and all of humanity an important life skill.

It was a typical Tuesday, June 16, 2009, Obama was in the midst of an interview with CNBC's John Harwood discussing some nonsense such as the economy when an unexpected intruder suddenly appeared. The uninvited guest had slipped past all security personnel and remained unnoticed until he had appeared within striking distance of Obama, president of the USA. Obama, noticing the intruder, paused mid-sentence, and in one lighting-quick motion Obama attacked and killed the enemy with his bare hands! He then nonchalantly turned back to the interview while the corpse lay on the White House carpet, only to pause once again to congratulate himself on a job well done.

The heroic act of President Obama and his swift deliverance of death to … the pesky fly … quickly spread across the world, causing rippled effects of shock and awe. Hundreds of thousands sat and replayed the scene, fortunately captured on camera, open-mouthed at the speediness and accuracy of his swat while exhaling with relief that the encounter with the loathsome creature hasn't cost the country trillions.

If you've watched this video anywhere less than 365 times, it's time to watch it again!

Oh, and for the event of the year? Why, that 's the creation of “Attack Watch” by the Obama Administration, where the first bipartisan president has made snitching on your enemies more fun than ever. He thus unified liberals against conservatives while receiving an effort-free money-free list of all who dare oppose “the One.”

Surely something so phenomenally stupendous deserves the Event of the Year Award, don't you agree?

Whenever Obama demands we ask Osama whether his Foreign Policy is effective, We'll just Ask The Drone

The Obama administration has been boasting non-stop over the deaths of Osama Bin Laden and other top Al Qaeda leaders as though Obama was the one who actually raided the building or participated in any of the other operations. In a recent email, the Democratic Party reminded the recipients that “Obama killed Osama” and the standard reply to all criticism from the right regarding his awful foreign policies is a conceited, ask Osama whether or not Obama is a foreign policy expert.”

On top of all the outright boasting, a movie detailing the Bin Laden raid is “coincidentally” scheduled for release several weeks prior to the 2012 elections.

Although Obama simply can't stop patting himself on the back for the successful operation, the credit belongs to the military, intelligence, and navy SEAL's, as Santorum and others have bluntly pointed out. America had built a great military which spent a complete decade tracking down Osama, and it was simply Obama's luck that they'd succeeded under his presidency. Their success actually came despite Obama and the limits the Obama administration has placed upon the military, not because of Obama. Obama, though, remains oblivious to the facts, and continues to take all the credit for himself.

Well, last week Obama committed a most ludicrous act and if he wouldn't be the president of this country he would've surely been charged with espionage, for there simply is no other word to describe the path Obama chose to follow last week.

Who would have ever dreamed that the president of the United States of America would opt to ignore all three options which were available for him which would've destroyed the drone and prevented crucial information from falling into enemy's hands? Did Obama really believe that pleading on his hands and knees would frighten Ahmadinejad into returning the drone, rather than grabbing the never-again-opportunity of exploiting America's most sophisticated radar-detect-less drone? Of course Ahmadinejad laughed off Obama's request since evil only understand the language of threats and force. Much the same way he continues his efforts in attaining nuclear weapons despite Obama's and the U.N.'s protests.

Obama's purposeful neglect of the surveillance drone and of U.S. military secrets should not be allowed to slip off the radar. His acts of treason should be hounded and pounded upon throughout the upcoming election until every single American is made aware of Obama's disregard for his country and his endless appeasement to enemy countries, which have weakened and damaged America's image across the globe. Not only has he destroyed the American economy, but he has allowed our military secrets to enter the hands of our enemies.

One can sum up Obama's incompetent foreign policy agenda with one sentence; “let us ask the drone which was left intact for the Iranians to hand over to Russia whether we can afford for more years of Obama's policies.”

Obama Shifts Focus from Creating Destructive Job Policies to Creating Voters

Obama has embarked on a voter creation mission. No, I am not talking about Obama's massive voter creation he has actively pursued since the day he became president, in which he destroyed the private sector so that millions of additional individuals were forced to join those already dependent on government. Those millions of new dependents are obviously expected to express their gratitude for extended unemployment benefits and free health care at the voting booths.

However, all his herculean efforts have proven to be inadequate, for his polling figures are worse than that of Jimmy Carter. A new solution was therefore desperately needed, and our brilliant president immediately discovered the perfect venue where one can purchase cheap voters while simultaneously destroying additional jobs!

The Obama Administration has announced it plans to slash the national guards protecting the U.S. - Mexican border at least in half, probably far more, citing budget cuts. You see, it is simply too expensive to spend ten million dollars a month for the security of this country, although trillions are available to throw into the failing pit of green industries.

With the removal of a majority of the national guards, illegals will once again be free to enter in the masses and enjoy free health care, free education for their kids, and many other benefits; courtesy of course from U.S. taxpayers. Most important of all, when election time comes around, ACORN will be able to register millions of new voters who will then cast their ballots for the Democratic Party. Voila! What a stroke of genius on Obama's part, although his experience as community organizer may also be credited in having helped him develop this plan.
 
The left has invested tremendous effort through the creation of programs to curry illegals' favor, the funding of ACORN groups which register and get them out to vote, challenging Arizona's immigration laws, and protests against voter ID laws, that removing security from the borders is simply the sensibly thing to do. It creates millions of new voters without them stealing any jobs from legals, contrary to the citizens' protests. After all, if there simply are no jobs to be found and Obama hasn't created any, how can they be stolen?

Ron Paul and Barack Obama both vehemently oppose a fence at the border, though due to differing concerns. Paul fears it can be used in the future to prohibit citizens from escaping communist America, while Obama is worried it will prevent or discourage illegals from strolling across the border. However , it might become necessary for Obama to take a lesson from Paul's concerns and support a fence in order to keep the illegals from heading back home prior to election day. As long as they keep on coming, though, the borders might as well be as open as possible.

Obama's policies will be discussed by future generations who will debate not how many jobs he has saved or created, but how many voters he has saved or created. 


 

Obama and Reid Oppose a Bill which will provide national security, fiscal solvency, and decrease unemployment

President Barack Obama has shown true leadership cowardliness last week with his threats to veto the payroll tax cut extension since Republicans are adding on to it an approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which promises to employ more than 10,000 workers and decrease gasoline prices in the United States.

“Any effort to tie Keystone to the payroll tax cut, I will reject. So everybody can be on notice,” Obama announced. Obama accused the Republicans for playing "politics and focusing on extraneous issues" instead of following his every whim.

If we thought Obama was the only one who cared more for his own reelection than the jobs of 10,000 unemployed Americans, think again. Harry Reid, senate Majority Leader and sidekick to Obama has announced last Friday that, “If the House sends us their bill with Keystone on it, they are just wasting valuable time because it will not pass the Senate.”

Approving the Keystone Pipeline will not only create many jobs, but will also lead to lower gas prices and increased national security since the oil originates from our ally, Canada, and will be processed within the U.S.

The only reason the Keystone Pipeline has not yet been approved, is actually the same reason why we aren't drilling in many oil-rich areas throughout the United States and that is none other than the environmentalists who have the Democrats sitting in their palms thanks to the grease they send their way.

Victor Davis Hanson wrote a brilliant column which clarifies the importance and necessity for the country to become energy independent through the extraction of natural resources previously unknown or difficult to extract and cutting our dependence on foreign Arabic oil. New technology has made many oil wells previously thought inaccessible or too expensive, extremely doable – if only environmentalists would take a step back. Additionally, many new oil and gas wells have been discovered, thus greatly increasing our quantities.  

With expanded exploration and conservation, the United States could also eventually supply half its own petroleum needs. If we were to eliminate just 5 million barrels of our current daily 9 million barrels of imported petroleum, the annual savings could reach nearly $200 billion per year. Eventually, the new gas and oil could add another 1.6 million new jobs and add up to nearly $1 trillion in federal revenue.

That windfall would cut out about a third of our present annual trade deficit -- well apart from additional income earned by new natural gas exportation. "Investments," "shovel-ready jobs" and "stimulus" would finally become more than empty sloganeering.

Current crises in American foreign policy -- Iran's efforts to obtain the bomb, the protection of an embattled Israel, stopping the funding of radical Islamists -- might be freed from the worries of perennial OPEC threats of cutoffs and price spikes.

Federal subsidies for inefficient corn-based ethanol production in the Midwest also could cease. That would save the Treasury billions of dollars and allow millions of American acres to return to food production to supply an increasingly hungry world.

The Obama administration's efforts to subsidize "green" energy so far have proved both uneconomical and occasionally corrupt -- as we have seen in the Solyndra affair. Yet more gas and oil can offer America critical breathing space until better technology makes wind, solar and electric power more price-competitive -- without massive federal subsidies and a marked reduction in our standard of living.

Of course, there are sizable interests opposed to the new American gas and oil finds -- not all of them foreign governments, but instead reflected in the current Obama administration policy of halting new pipelines, placing moratoriums on offshore drilling, and putting lucrative federal lands off-limits. Yet if the United States does not produce much of the fuel that it uses, will the oil-exporting Gulf sheikdoms, Nigeria or Iran better protect the world's environment than American-based oil companies? Would our oil dollars or theirs be less likely to fuel terrorism, illegal arms sales and rogue regimes?

For the American poor and unemployed, how liberal is it, really, to keep energy prices high while stalling millions of high-paying private-sector jobs that would both lower government costs in entitlements and empower the working classes?

In the current presidential campaign, three issues dominate: national security, fiscal solvency and high unemployment. Development of America's vast new gas and oil finds addresses all three at once.

The idea of vastly expanding American gas and oil production in the 21st century is almost as unbelievable as the present administration's apparent reluctance to capitalize on its windfall.

You can read here the entire column .