The GOP Seminar in Surrender

December 5, 2012 in America's Collapse, Congress, Debt Crisis, Fiscal Cliff, Mitt Romney, Obama-Nomics, Obama's America 2016, Obamanation, Paul Ryan, Political Deception, President Obama, Redistribution of Wealth, Republicans Vs. Tea Party, Speaker John Boehner, Taxiation with Representation

[Boehner and the Republicans have Caved!- Remember “The play’s the thing”]

The GOP Seminar in Surrender




RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, this morning there was a joint press conference that featured the so-called Republican leadership of John Boehner and Eric Cantor and about 15 other people that were standing there. I don’t know why, but they were smiling. And what we got today was a seminar on how to surrender. It was weak. The Republicans have conceded the language. They have conceded the silly language of baseline budgeting. I think it’s time for a re-teaching of what baseline budgeting is, because until that’s addressed, all of this is smoke and mirrors. All of this fiscal cliff stuff, deficit reduction talk, there isn’t any.There aren’t any spending cuts, even if they claim there are because of the current services baseline. All there will ever be until that’s fixed is cuts in the rate of growth of spending.But there won’t be any real spending cuts. And the Republicans showed today that they’re not even interested in it. And now they’re ceding the language. So now deductions are loopholes. You know what that sets up? That sets up the premise that 100% of income is subject to taxation and that everything that we might deduct from our overall gross earnings is a loophole, not a deduction, not a legitimate deduction. They just gave that away by conceding on the language here. A loophole is not a deduction, but it has become one.

I mean, stop and think. When you think of a loophole in the tax law, what do you think of? You think of an unintended error that allows people to get away without paying their taxes. That’s what you think a loophole is. Well, sorry. Now a standard, legal itemized deduction and everyone one of them have become loopholes. And such, they are subject to elimination. So now the premise of 100% taxation, the premise is now on the table. And all that means is that all money is Washington’s, and what we end up with is totally up to their discretion and their big-heartedness or mean-heartedness, what have you.

This seminar in surrender today also –– we got the sound bites coming up, you’ll hear it — validated the false premise that confiscating additional private property will result in greater tax revenue going forward. The Republicans have just given in. They have compromised, what have you, on the premise that raising taxes on the rich will fix the problem. They have conceded that the problem exists in part because the rich aren’t paying their fair share. They must feel so squished, so defeated, so universally disliked. I think we all had a sense of this. The first few days after the election, you start listening to Republicans from the consultant class to the elected class, all talk about what they had to do to start winning elections. It basically was, “Well, we have to adopt the liberal premise on things without actually saying so. We gotta be open to amnesty, relax our views on abortion. We gotta concede that many of the Tea Party’s a bunch of kooks,” all that.

Well, it turns out that that apparently is exactly what they think they’ve gotta do. Because once you concede the premise that taking private property from people is justified and will actually reduce deficits, ’cause it won’t, it can’t. The only thing that can reduce deficits is two things: economic growth and spending cuts. And nobody has anything on the table that’s gonna promote economic growth, and of course nobody has anything on the table that’s gonna result in any genuinely reduced spending.

You know, if it weren’t for the fact that my expectations going into this were so low to begin with, I’d be really mad. But my expectations on this have been fulfilled. My expectations here thus have made it possible that I’m not blowing a gasket here. I’m sure some of you, contrary to me, probably had high expectations. You probably thought, “Well, we elected the Republicans. They know that they’re the last wall of defense. They’re the firewall.”


Some of you, I’m sure, are livid and outraged. Believe me, intellectually I’m with you. Emotionally, my expectations on this were so low that I’m not angry. In fact, they’ve been met. Obama’s gonna end up getting what he wants. We’re using his language. We’re now calling new taxes “revenues.” We have accepted the premise that “new revenues” will result in greater tax receipts going forward. Yeah, let’s listen. Maybe I’m wr… No. I was gonna say, “Maybe I’m wrong.” (laughing)

Here’s Boehner on Capitol Hill, a little press briefing on the fiscal cliff…

BOEHNER: If the president doesn’t agree with, uh, our proposal and our outline, I think he’s got an obligation, uh, to send one to the Congress — and a plan that can pass both chambers of Congress. If you look at the — the plans that the White House have — have talked about thus far, uh, they couldn’t pass either house of the Congress. We’re ready and eager to talk to the president and to work with him to make sure that the American people, uhh, aren’t disadvantaged, uhh, by what’s happening here in Washington.

RUSH: Well, the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that Obama doesn’t want deal to with you. He wants to go over the cliff. He doesn’t want to deal with you, except to the extent he can get to you concede to him. He has no desire to deal with you. Here’s Eric Cantor…

CANTOR: They don’t want to sit down with the president! We want to talk specifics. We put an offer on the table now. He has out-of-hand rejected that. Where are the specifics? Where are the discussions? Nothing is going on. Meanwhile, the people of this country are the ones that suffer. So we ask the president, “Sit down with us, be serious about the specifics of spending, so we can stop the wasteful spending in Washington and finally address the problem.”

RUSH: Now, I… It’s just the same old lingo. Those two bites do not feature the ceding of the language that I heard (i.e., “deductions” being “loopholes”). But again, in that sense, it’s not just these guys. I mean, the Republican Party made that part of their presidential campaign. You know, Romney was suggesting that we could “raise” $1.2 trillion or something by eliminating deductions and so forth. By the way, I have it here somewhere.

Obama, back in 2011, said, “No way,” or… Nah, where did he…? I thought I had it right here at the top. I’m sorry, I don’t. Obama has contradicted himself. Whatever he’s saying today, he said just the exact opposite in 2011 about deductions and so forth. Which is instructive and informative only in the sense that whatever he’s saying now doesn’t matter and can’t be trusted. He’s out there saying, “The economy’s poised to take off!”

Sorry, the math doesn’t work out. It just doesn’t. It just isn’t there. Let me take a break here. I’ve got to anyway. I want to find this point of contradiction with Obama. There’s a lot of other interesting stuff out there today. Folks, I’m sorry, but this stuff, frankly… I don’t want to disappoint you, but as I said: My expectations going into it were not very high anyway. So I’m not all that surprised at the way this is shaping up and the way it’s gonna end up going down.

I’ll be shocked, pleasantly so, to be wrong if indeed I am.


RUSH: Okay, I found it. You know where I put it? I’ve got three pages here on Ryan and Rubioand the speeches they made at the Jack Kemp Foundation. The Kemp Foundation has an annual dinner to celebrate Kemp. They met at the Mayflower Hotel last night and it was obvious… Both Rubio and Paul Ryan, in their speeches, did everything they could to distance themselves from the 47% comment that Romney made.

That really has got the Republican Party shaken up.

I mean, everybody in it is flabbergasted.

Bobby Jindal, Rubio, now Paul Ryan. They all are just flabbergasted over that, and they think it’s one of the reasons Romney lost. So they’re all making tracks to distance themselves from that whole 47% comment that Romney made and the premise that is behind it. Both their speeches, you could say, were an attempt to get out from under the legacy of that comment and make sure they have no contact with it, no relationship with it whatsoever.

They don’t agree with it, don’t want any part of it.

We’ve got sound bites of both of their speeches coming up as well, as the program unfolds.

Anyway, I had put this story about Obama underneath that, and here he is: “In negotiations on the looming fiscal cliff, Obama has been insistent on the matter of raising tax rates on the top 2%.” It was the top 1%, by the way. Now it’s the top 2%. Remember he started out wanting $800 billion? After he won the election, he started flexing his muscles and jacked that up to $1.6 trillion.

And Boehner has come along and offered $800 billion with the premise of eliminating “loopholes.” I can’t tell you how the ceding of the language hurts. You know, the language matters. Words mean things, and to let the left once have another word and total co-opt it and destroy its real meaning… We’ve just allowed it to happen here. So now every legitimate deduction is a “loophole.”

From now on going forward, the mortgage interest deduction is a “loophole.” The charitable deduction is a “loophole.” The earned income tax credit’s a “loophole” now. Well, you know what low-information voters think a “loophole” is. You know what people who file a one-page tax form think a “loophole” is. And the vast majority of Americans file a one page, the 1040-EZ form.

“How much did you make? How much will you give us? Here’s what here taking. Send it in.” And they’re done with it. They don’t know itemized deductions or the earned income tax credit. All they know is what they make and what they pay — which, in many cases, income tax-wise isn’t much. But they hear the word “loophole” and they think tax cheat. And so now every legit, by law, itemized deduction is considered a “loophole” for the express purpose of eliminating them.

Well, this is our private property we’re talking about. Our money is as much our private property as anything else that we have earned and that we own. And Boehner has said (summarized), “All right, I’ll give you $800 billion in new revenue.” They live in this world. They think, because of the election, that the American people want new taxes and want new “revenue.” I’ll boil it down to the essence.

It’s clear that they have no interest in teaching conservatism. It’s clear they have no interest in defending it or standing up for it or explaining it, even. And I think one of the reasons is that many of them really aren’t conservatives. It used to be that “Republican Party” and “conservative” meant the same thing. I don’t think they do anymore. It’s been that way for a while. But they don’t explain it. They don’t take the opportunity to contrast it because they don’t know it.

It’s like they or some consultants convince them that all they gotta do to win these precious independents or win the votes of people who are voting against them is go ahead and give them what they want, which is taxes on the rich. And “the rich” is now defined as $200,000 a year. Anyway, “In negotiations on this looming fiscal cliff, Obama has been insistent on the matter of raising taxes top 2%. In a Bloomberg interview yesterday, Obama said, “It’s just a matter of math.

“You know, there’s been a lot of talk, that somehow we can raise $800 billion or a trillion dollars worth of revenue just by closing loopholes and deductions. … [T]hat’s not a realistic option.” Yet it was just over a year ago, in the same negotiations with Republicans going on now on the debt reduction deal that never came to fruition, the White House proposed doing just that. They proposed $800 billion, raising revenue, by closing loopholes and deductions.

Yesterday Obama says, “You can’t do it! There’s not that kind of money there.”

A year ago he was all for it!

Well, how do you negotiate with somebody like this?

You don’t!

And then why do you beg somebody like this to come sit at the table with you and give you a proposal?

Take it to him, for crying out loud!


RUSH: All right, here is what Obama said in July of 2011. This was during another such negotiation as this. It wasn’t a fiscal cliff negotiation, but it was a debt reduction deal. Debt limit, all that. And here’s what Obama said in July of 2011. “What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking tax rates. It could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could lower rates generally while broadening the base.”

He said that a year ago. Now, he did not mean it. Remember, July ’11, it’s reelection time in their mind. He didn’t mean it. He doesn’t mean lower tax rates. He would never do it, but he talked about it. The important thing is, the take-away here is that in July of 2011 Barack Obama articulated the very deal Boehner has offered. After winning reelection last month, Obama said, to hell with that, and jacked up his demand to $1.6 trillion. He wants the Clinton tax rates back, which is close to 40% on the upper earners.

Yesterday Obama said: “It’s just a matter of math. You know, there’s been a lot of talk, that somehow we can raise $800 billion or a trillion dollars worth of revenue just by closing loopholes and deductions. … That’s not a realistic option.”

Let me read these quotes again, back-to-back.

Obama, July 2011: “Give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking tax rates. It could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could lower rates generally while broadening the base.” That’s July last year.

Yesterday: “It’s just a matter of math. You know, there’s been a lot of talk, that somehow we can raise $800 billion or a trillion dollars worth of revenue just by closing loopholes and deductions. … That’s not a realistic option.”

Okay, so if you’re Boehner and Cantor and these guys, which Obama do you deal with here? My point is you don’t deal. This is like trying to get out of quicksand, herd cats, or swim in Jell-O. Whatever analogy that you want. Now, here’s Boehner. This is also from the press conference this morning.

BOEHNER: This week we made a good-faith offer to avert the fiscal crisis.

RUSH: Yeah.

BOEHNER: And that offer included significant spending cuts and reforms, and it included additional revenue.

RUSH: Yeah.

BOEHNER: And frankly it was the balanced approach that the president’s been asking for. Now we need a response from the White House.

RUSH: He’s accepted the premise. This is my point. Okay, spending cuts will never happen, additional revenue, why don’t we just call it taxes? “We’ve agreed with the president to raise taxes $800 billion.” Why not just say that? Instead of this “new revenue” garbage. We’ve already lost the word “investment.” “Investment” now means tax increase. “Investment” means more private property of yours taken away. If somebody could convince me that our budget problems were because we’re undertaxed then maybe I’d have a different view, but it’s not. We do not have a taxation problem. We have got a wildly out-of-control spending problem. But we’ve just accepted the premise.

By the way, the new revenue that Boehner offered was $800 billion. Boehner offered exactly what Obama asked for last July, and Obama says, “Well, the math doesn’t work out on that.” I’ll tell you what it reminds me of. My first ever contract in this business was in 1986. I started in this business 1967. So essentially it was 20 years before I had a contract. It was a big deal to have contract. Not everybody did. It was a sign that you had advanced climbing the ladder and all that. I didn’t have an agent. I don’t have an agent now. Why give somebody 20%, 5%, whatever, when I can do it myself?

At any rate, I am, quote, unquote, “in negotiations” with the general manager. And we set a meeting. We’re in the middle of the talks, as it is said. We have a meeting scheduled for 7:30 one morning. My program starts at nine. I show up at 7:30, the general manager is in his office on the phone, puts his call on hold, said, “What are you doing here?”

“I’m here for our meeting.”

“We don’t have a meeting.”

“Yeah, we have a contract…”

“No, there’s no meeting.”

“What are you talking about?”

He started thumbing through his calendar. “I don’t have anything on the calendar here. I don’t have time for you today.”

I ran out, I said, “What the hell just happened?” It was a typical ploy. I didn’t know what was going on. We all learn as you go through these things. It didn’t take me long to learn what had happened, but at the moment I’m thinking, “Did I get something wrong?” But what had happened was I had been put totally on the defensive. And what had really been conveyed was, “I don’t care about you. You’re not important. Why do you think I’ve got a meeting with you? Who do you think you are?” That was the message.

Well, that’s all that’s happening here. A year ago Obama had made the comment to Boehner. A year ago, $800 billion, we can raise that if we close loopholes. So Boehner offered it this year. “What are you talking about? The math doesn’t work out. I don’t know what you’re talking about.” But to complete the analogy, if I would have acted then like the Republicans are acting today, I woulda walked out of the general manager’s office, I woulda gone on the radio and started crying about it. “What do you mean? Come on, we were supposed to meet. Will you meet with me?” They’re saying, “We’ve submitted a proposal. All we want is the president to react to our proposal. We’ve done what he wanted. Could he just submit a response?”

I don’t know, maybe they don’t know or maybe they don’t understand or they don’t agree that what the president is trying to do is render them irrelevant. There’s a lot of ego attached to positions of power in Washington, and it may well be that if you’re Speaker of the House, it’s inconceivable somebody would want to render you irrelevant, in your own mind. I don’t know. I’ve never been Speaker of the House. But I know egos. I’ve been surrounded by ’em all my life and I have a healthy one myself, that’s in check, by the way, contrary to popular opinion. (laughing)

But, again, we’ve ceded the lingo. We’re now calling tax increases revenue. We’ve agreed $800 billion of revenue. We’re accepting the premise that it’s a tax problem and, yeah, and that it’s a balanced approach. And we’re doing this with a guy that we know has run up the national debt $6 trillion in four years. This guy has added to the national debt more than all the previous presidents combined.

Now, the Republicans also have a history, a behavioral pattern you can predict. They believe Obama won the election, that means he should get his judges and he should get his budget, and that’s what it means. And by the same token, when we win elections… except it never works out that way. You never hear the Democrats adopting our language. You never hear the Democrats abandoning their core beliefs and what they believe. In fact, when they lose, you’d be hard-pressed to know it by watching the media and listening to the Democrats each and every day after they lose an election.

Now, you notice that in July of 2011, Obama said that we could raise $1.2 trillion by eliminating loopholes. That’s 50% more than Boehner says they could raise, $800 billion. Obama said you could get $1.2 trillion closing loopholes in July of 2011. So Boehner said, “Okay, well, here’s $800 billion.” Obama said, “No, no, no, math doesn’t work out. You can’t do that. I mean, that would mean eliminating the charitable deduction,” when in fact that’s what he wants to do. You know, I guess my point is if we’re gonna let him have his way, do it. Don’t compromise yourself in the process. And don’t make it look like his way is also yours.

But look, that’s just me, folks, I’m just a guy on the radio here. I’ve never done their job. It’s easy to throw spitballs here from the peanut gallery. But there is a pattern. There is a pattern that’s undeniable here in every debt deal that’s negotiated, be it the debt limit, be it this fiscal cliff, be it the budget. There’s a pattern, and it always involves us relaxing what we believe, due to the premise that we think we’re hated and so we gotta do stuff to make people like us. I still think that’s at the root of a lot of this, plus the fact that they don’t know conservatism. They really aren’t conservatives, and thus taking the occasion, the opportunity to teach it, to be instructive, is really not relevant, either.

Let’s take a brief time-out. We’ll be back, and — there’s other stuff happening out there. We’ll get to it when we get back.


RUSH: To prove my point, CNN is overjoyed. Here is their headline for their report on the Boehner press conference. You ready? Quote: “The Rich Will Pay More in Taxes, Boehner Says.” There you have it. And so you see, the Republicans have now agreed with the premise that the problem is that the rich aren’t paying their fair share. We have just agreed with Obama’s campaign premise.

The rich aren’t paying their fair share!

The Republicans have agreed to this, they’ve recognized this, and Boehner says those days are over. “The rich will pay more in taxes.” Now, some of you might be saying, “But, Rush! But, Rush! You know, the media would say that no matter what.” Nope. Not in this case. Not if Boehner and the Republicans had steadfastly opposed raising taxes on anyone. “But, Rush! But, Rush! They can’t win that.”

That’s not the point. The point is what you stand for when this is all said and done. You have something to fall back on and go back to, in order to move forward. We’ve just given away something that used to be part of our brand. “That’s right, Rush, and the brand is what’s killing us. Republicans love the rich, and Boehner knows it.” That could be at the root of this, too. It could be.

These guys, elected Republicans, believe that the average American thinks that the only people the average Republican cares about are the rich. “Let’s get rid of that! Let’s raise taxes on them. To hell with it! I’m sick and tired of being called a friend of the rich.” When in fact it’s Obama who has all the crony capitalist deals with all the rich guys. Could be that. Whatever, it’s defensive. And whatever, it’s reactionary.

It certainly isn’t proactive.

From the article: “Taxes on the wealthy are going up, House Speaker John Boehner conceded on Wednesday in challenging President Barack Obama to sit down with him to hammer out a deal for avoiding the fiscal cliff.” So you see, in the Drive-Bys now we got the framework for a deal! “Finally we’re gonna blame the rich. We should have been doing that all along, and now Boehner’s finally agreed. Okay, now we can move forward.”

They’re blaming the rich.

The last group of people with any money in the private sector have now, officially, been targeted.


RUSH: All right, there it is up on CNN; “Obama Demanding Tax Hike on Wealthy,” and of course the Republicans agreed to do that today and actually earlier in the week, by reducing “loopholes.” But Obama’s not gonna be content with that. He wants the rates to go up, too — make no mistake — and they will. Here. I’ve got Obama in his own words, back-to-back. Let’s go July 22nd at the White House. This is Obama, a press briefing on the debt ceiling talks at that time…

OBAMA JULY 22, 2012: What we said was, uh, “Give us 1.2 trillion in additional revenues,” which could be accomplished without hiking tax rates but could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions, and engaging in a tax-reform process that could have lowered rates generally by broadening the base.

RUSH: That’s last year, July of last year. “Yeah, we could raise $1.2 trillion just by closing loopholes and eliminating deductions.” Here’s Obama yesterday…

OBAMA DECEMBER 4, 2012: It’s not me being stubborn. It’s not me being partisan. It’s just a matter of math. You know, there’s been a lot of talk that somehow we can raise $800 billion or a trillion dollars worth of revenue just by closing loopholes and deductions.

RUSH: Yeah, you did.

OBAMA DECEMBER 4, 2012: But a lot of your viewers understand, uh, uh, that the only way to do that would be if you completely eliminated, for example, charitable deductions. Well, i-i-i-if you eliminate charitable deductions, that means every hospital and university and not-for-profit agency across the country would suddenly find themselves, uh, on the verge of collapse. So that’s not a realistic option.

RUSH: Yeah?

Last year it was!

Last year it was a totally realistic option, right out of Obama’s mouth.

This year, ain’t no way. You’d have to eliminate ’em all. And then he says, “Yeah, and what’s wrong with that? Hee-hee-hee-hee. I’ll gladly be the sole benefactor for hospitals! I’ll gladly be the sole benefactor for universities. I’ll gladly be the sole benefactor for nonprofits.” That’s what he wants, anyway.


Doug in Seattle. I’m glad you waited. Great to have you on the program, sir. Hi.

CALLER: Good morning, Rush, from sunny liberty sicko Seattle.

RUSH: Yes, sir. Welcome to the program.

CALLER: Well, 23, 24-year-listener, first-time caller, first time I’ve ever called a radio show in my life.

RUSH: Oh, I’m honored.

CALLER: Got through to Snerdley on like the third ring, so unbelievable.

RUSH: Well, I’m glad you made it. Thank you, sir.

CALLER: Thanks. Well, I agree that any tax hikes by Obama or the Republicans for that matter is not gonna solve anything, but I have an idea for a very simple plan, very understandable by even the American people. I know that’s a tough nut to crack, and could put Obama in a bind. And here’s the plan. Are you ready?

RUSH: I’m ready.

CALLER: Very simple. You redefine middle class to about four to 500 K. That gives the people in the high cost areas, New York, California, Washington state, you know, which really is middle class in a lot of those places, gets them into the middle class. You lower the tax rates for the middle class down to 15 or 20%.

RUSH: They already are.

CALLER: The maximum you’re gonna pay is 15 or 20. If you want to make it lower for people in the lower middle class, or lower class, that’s great, no problem. And here’s the biggest thing. Any savings by the middle class, capital gains and gains they make, capital gains, dividends, interest if they have money in a bank or they own a bond —

RUSH: Okay —

CALLER: — anything they make in savings is tax-free, no tax ever.

RUSH: I’ve got to take a break here, but I’ve actually thought of something similar to that. Be back in just a second.


RUSH: If there was no tax on savings, like our previous caller said, you’d have to get out of the way for all the capital flooding into this country. Why do you think people go offshore, is to escape this kind of stuff. There are clearly all kinds of ways to build up this economy. Obama’s not interested and the Republicans ought not participate with him in his ideas.



Read more at:!


Mitt The Mild: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, And Deficits, Deficits, Deficits, Lose, Lose, Lose

November 12, 2012 in 2012 Election, Don Feder, Mitt Romney, Politics, President Obama

By Don Feder

How do you blow an election when your opponent presided over the worst economy in memory – unemployment has hovered at 8% for almost four years; the price of gas has doubled; the national debt has grown by a third; long-term unemployment is up 87%; the number of Americans in poverty increased by 6.4 million; and the president’s signature initiative (Obamacare) has been consistently opposed by a majority of Americans since it passed two and a half years ago?

How do you lose an election to an incumbent whose foreign policy consists of cringing, kowtowing and abject apologies a foreign policy defined by the body of an American ambassador being dragged through the streets of a Third World sinkhole?

How do you manage to screw up a presidential campaign two years after your party sweeps into power in the House of Representatives with the largest majority in over 60 years and takes most of the swing-state governorships? How do you engineer such a catastrophe with one of the greatest populist movements in American history the Tea Parties at your back?

Every time conservatives let the Republican establishment pick our presidential candidate, we lose: Gerald Ford in 1976, George H.W. Bush in 1992, Dole in 1996 and McCain in 2008.

The GOP elite believes it has a God-given right to bestow the party’s presidential nomination as it thinks best, while the role of the conservative activist base is to respectfully touch our forelocks and fall in line. It favors candidates who are committed to being non-controversial, who live in abject fear of offending the mushy middle, who confine disagreements with their opponents to economic issues and me-too furiously elsewhere. The results are predictable. The result is Mitt Romney.

Governor Romney is a decent man, a patriot with a nice family who knows how to create jobs. As a candidate, he was unimaginative, uninspiring and pathetically adverse to taking risks.

Romney resolutely refused to talk about anything but the economy. At its convention, the GOP nodded respectfully toward God and said nice things about life and marriage in its platform.

But when the campaign began in earnest after Labor Day, it was all jobs, jobs, jobs, deficits, deficits and deficits. (The high cost of energy got an honorable mention.) Romney was maniacal about staying on message. When Benghazi exploded in the president’s face, the Romney camp outsourced the issue to talk radio. That’s not leadership.

Incredibly, exit polls showed more voters trusted Obama to handle a foreign crisis than Romney (by 57% to 50%). That’s what comes from the GOP nominee’s refusal to speak frankly about the fiasco.

During the much-hyped Arab Spring, Obama helped turn Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood. He gave Libya a government that was either unable or unwilling to control al-Qaeda clones, which Moammar Gadhafi (who must be grinning in hell) did quite effectively.

During the siege of our Benghazi consulate, the White House dithered for seven crucial hours (when the lives of four Americans could have been saved by modest military intervention) for fear of offending the Muslim street — the lodestar of Obama’s foreign policy. The father of one of the dead former Navy SEALs all but accused the president of killing his son.

The administration lied about the nature of the attack for two weeks. Romney could have said: How can you trust a man who misled the American people about what caused a foreign policy disaster which sends a signal of American impotence to our enemies?” But his campaign was terrified of going off-message and fearful of projecting its candidate as a warmonger, so it said as little as possible. It was a thousand times worse than McCain giving Obama a pass on Jeremiah Wright in 2008.

Mitt the Mild thought he could coast to victory by inspiring confidence, by smiling a lot and sounding presidential about nothing in particular.

Even the discussion of Obama’s record of economic carnage was in muted tones: Not, this out-of-control ideologue is killing the middle class and destroying our future, but, oh dear me, we just can’t afford four more years. Never send a RINO to do a conservative’s job.

Have you noticed how the media blather about negative campaigning was conspicuously absent this year? That’s because the negativity came exclusively from their candidate.

Obama successfully tagged his opponent as a corporate-raider, down-sizer, outsourcer and health-insurance-snatcher, who ate widows and orphans for breakfast on Christmas Day.

The meme was multi-millionaire Mitt wants tax cuts for the rich. Mitt disdains the middle class. Mitt’s a liar. Mitt wants to let his Big Oil buddies destroy the environment to reap obscene profits. Mitt would deny women contraceptives and then force them to have their rapist’s child.

Instead of talking about Obama’s radical ties (Wright, Ayers, Occupy Wall Street, Van Jones) and his illegal amnesty for illegal aliens (or his assault on the Constitution generally), instead of exposing his war on Christianity combined with his breathless love affair with Islam, it was: Don’t you know we can’t afford four more years? Obama tossed red meat to his base. Romney dangled a balance sheet.

Smart candidates in a tight race go negative because it works. Fear and anger (Voting is the best revenge) always trump sweetness and light. Obama figured that out early on. Romney is still staring vacantly into space waiting for light to dawn on Marblehead.

Much has been said about changing demographics. This usually relates to the browning of America  – the shrinking white majority combined with a rising minority population.

That’s only part of the picture. More than in any past campaign, this election reflects the left’s success in re-creating America in its image: a nation more single and secular than ever before a nation whose symbol is a hand raised palm up.

Family and faith (the bedrock of conservative votes) are eroding. The gender gap is more of a single-women gap. In 2008, John McCain, nobody’s idea of a hot date, won married women by 3 points, while Obama won their unmarried counterparts by 41 points.

Married women, especially those with children (where Republicans really clean up), are thinking about the future in a serious way how to make ends meet, save for the kids education, plan for retirement.

Single women are concerned primarily about the government’s ability to help with the consequences of their inability to keep their legs closed.

For decades, the left promoted singleness by encouraging easy divorce, welfare policies that made government daddy, and loosening sexual restraints.

They’ve also turned single women into the newest victim group by cultivating resentment. Spurred by the religious right, Republicans are coming to take away your reproductive rights, the left warns. Destruction of the economy is a small price to pay for the freedom to eliminate those pesky products of conception. The Democrats are selling not liberty but license. Single women fell for it like chicks swooning when Magic Mike struts on stage.

Two decades ago, Billy Graham’s virtual endorsement of Romney, in full-page ads, would have been a quite a coup. This year, even if the Romney campaign had chosen to capitalize on it, the impact would have been far less pronounced.

In 1990, 8% of Americans said they had no religious identity or affiliation. By 2012, that number had grown to 19.6% (including fully a third of adults under 30). By portraying the devout as sexually repressed bigots, fanatics and anti-science zealots, the left (through its legions in the news and entertainment media) has grown this demographic.

While Republican candidates always get the lion’s share of regular churchgoers, according to pre-election polls, the unaffiliated were breaking for Obama over Romney by 65% to 27%. This is another constituency the left has both helped to create and assiduously courts. Under Obama, for the first time, a delegation of atheists and agnostics was welcomed to the White House.

While Romney’s 47% comment was inaccurate (retirees on Social Security aren’t the same as AFDC recipients), in many ways, America has become Gimme Nation a people in relentless pursuit of stuff provided at the taxpayers’ expense. De Tocqueville forecast the end of democracy in America when a majority learned they could vote themselves benefits from the Treasury.

The number on food-stamps has grown from 17 million in 2000 to 30 million in 2008 to 46 million today, with one in seven Americans now dining at Chez Taxpayers. The regime even had local USDA offices throw parties to promote participation.

Perhaps 40% of the nation is hardcore entitlement addicts. We believe we’re entitled to have someone else buy our groceries, pay for our health care, give us college loans that never have to be repaid, and help us buy houses we can’t afford. I’m surprised there’s no Federal Plasma TV Assistance Program.

Obama knows how to work this sense of entitlement: The rich aren’t playing by the same rules as they rest of us. They just have to pay a little more so you can have your stuff. Entrepreneurs didn’t build their businesses; we all did with wonderful roads and bridges, so we can take as much of what they have as we want.

As we move from the Greatest Generation to the Boomers to Generation X-marks-the-spot to dig for buried government treasure, the sense of entitlement grows and the sense of responsibility fades.

But it’s Romney who bears ultimate responsibility for Tuesday’s debacle. When asked how Lenin and the Bolsheviks defeated democratic socialist Alexander Kerensky, the late Ayn Rand of Atlas Shrugged” fame observed, “You can’t beat something with nothing. Exactly.

Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant. He also maintains his own website,

America goes into the darkness

November 8, 2012 in America's Collapse, Election, Foreign Policy, Iran, Mitt Romney, Obama's America 2016, The Stakes for the 2012 Election

7 November 2012

America goes into the darkness

Published in: Melanie’s blog

The greatest satisfaction today over the re-election of Obama is not being felt in the Democratic Party. It is not being felt among the media, who are no longer objective observers but have turned instead into corrupt partisans who ruthlessly censored the truth about Obama and helped peddle his demonising propaganda about his opponent. It is not being felt among the gloating, drooling decadents of the western left who now scent a great blood-letting of all who dare defy their secular inquisition. No, the greatest satisfaction is surely being felt in Iran.

With four more years of Obama in the White House, Iran can now be sure that it will be able to complete its infernal construction of a genocide bomb to use against the Jews and the west. World War Three has now come a lot closer.

It is said that, with likely gridlock in Congress over domestic issues, Obama will concentrate on foreign policy. We should all shudder. So far, Obama has empowered Iran to destabilise the region; supported Islamist takeovers in Egypt and Libya; is backing al Qaeda affiliates in Syria; refused to come to the aid of Americans being attacked by al Qaeda in Benghazi as a result of which four American officials were murdered; and hung Israel out to dry against its genocidal Palestinian attackers.

report last month that Obama was secretly negotiating with the Iranian regime took on an even more incendiary aspect a few days ago with a claim that these negotiations were being led by his close friend and adviser, Valerie Jarrett.

If Jarrett was indeed involved, that should strike a deep chill into anyone who has not joined the lemming-like leap over the edge of the western cliff. For Iranian-born Jarrett – who Obama has admitted he consults before he takes any decision and who has been said to act as his ‘spine’ — is a far-leftist with roots deep in the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine. Indeed, Jarrett has been credited with originally smoothing Obama’s entry into Chicago’s political elite, and is now said to be – despite her controversial background — the most influential person in his circle.

There have also been claims that she advised Obama against killing Osama bin Laden, which although unsubstantiated are all too credible. If this wholly ill-equipped and sinister individual really has been leading secret negotiations with Iran – raising the fear that far from preventing Iranian nuclear terrorism Obama intends to allow the regime a face saving compromise under cover of which it will finish building its nuclear weapon – then Obama’s perfidy against the west really is as bad as some of us feared from the start.

Four years ago, America put into the White House a sulky narcissist with close links to people with a history of thuggish, far-left, black power, Jew-bashing, west-hating politics. In his autobiography, Obama himself described his mentor, the communist agitator Frank Marshall Davis, as being a promoter of  black power; in 1995 Obama went on the Million Man March organised by the black power activist and radical antisemite Louis Farrakhan; for twenty years, Obama belonged to a church whose pastor, Jeremiah Wright, peddled antisemitic conspiracy theories, denounced black assimilation into white society and in June 2009 claimed that Jews were controlling Obama and were preventing Wright from talking to him.

Obama’s agenda has been crystal clear from the get-go: to increase the power of the state over the citizen at home, and to neutralise American power abroad. Four more years of this and he’ll almost certainly have succeeded.  The impact upon western security could be cataclysmic.

Britain and the Europeans love Obama because they think he will end American exceptionalism and turn the US into a pale shadow of themselves. What they don’t realise is that, all but lobotomised by consumerist rights, state dependency, victim culture, sentimentality, post-religion, post-nationalism and post-Holocaust and Empire guilt, Britain and Europe are themselves fast going down the civilisational tubes.

Romney lost because he refused to provide an alternative to any of this for fear of being labelled a warmonger, flint-heart or social reactionary. He refused to engage with any of the issues that made this Presidential election so truly momentous. Up against the bullying of the totalitarian left, he ran for cover. He played safe, and as a result only advertised his own weakness and dishonesty. Well, voters can smell inconsistency from a mile away; they call it untrustworthiness, and they are right.

Romney lost because, like Britain’s Conservative Party, the Republicans just don’t understand that America and the west are being consumed by a culture war. In their cowardice and moral confusion, they all attempt to appease the enemies within. And from without, the Islamic enemies of civilisation stand poised to occupy the void.

With the re-election of Obama, America now threatens to lead the west into a terrifying darkness.

Benghazi – New Revelations – Benghazi-Gate – Obama Admin Cover-Up?

October 27, 2012 in Al Qaeda, Benghazi Coverup, Benghazi Gate, Election, Hillary Clinton, Homeland Security, Middle East Peace, Middle East War, Mitt Romney, Obama's America 2016, Obamanation, Political Correctness, Political Deception, Politics, President Obama

Obama avoids question on whether Americans in Libya were denied requests for help

Published October 27, 2012

President Obama has declined to answer directly whether a CIA annex was denied urgent requests for military assistance during the deadly attacks last month on U.S. outposts in Libya.

The president said neither yes or no Friday when asked pointedly whether the Americans under attack in Benghazi, Libya, were denied requests for help during the attack.   Fox News has learned from sources on the ground during the Sept. 11 attacks that the CIA chain of command twice told agency operatives to “stand down.”   “The election has nothing to do with the four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened,” the president said first in a TV interview with an NBC affiliate in Colorado.

When asked again, Obama said, “The minute I found out what was going on, I gave three very clear directives — Number 1, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to,” the president said in a TV interviews with an NBC affiliate in Colorado.   The first attack occurred at the American consulate in Benghazi, killing U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and U.S. diplomat Sean Smith.   Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team that was at the CIA annex about a mile from the consulate when it came under attack. Upon hearing shots fired, team members asked higher-ups at the annex if they could go the consulate. However, they were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange.   Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and went to the consulate, evacuating survivors and Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack.   They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight. At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. Woods and fellow former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty were killed at the annex by a mortar shell at 4 a.m.   The CIA and Defense Department have denied claims about requests for support being rejected.   “The agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi,” said CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood. “Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need. Claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”    Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help.   “There’s a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here,” he said Thursday. “But the basic principle here … is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.”   Obama also said in the TV interview, as he said previously said, the administration is going to “investigate what happened to make sure it never happens again” and  find out who was involved in the attack so they can be brought to justice.   “I guarantee you that everybody in the State Department, our military, CIA, you name it, have a No.1 priority making sure that people are safe. These are our folks. And we’re going to find out exactly what happened but what we’re also going to do is make sure that we are identify those who carried out these terrible attacks,” the president said.

Read more:

Final Presidential Debate 2012 (Complete) Obama VS Romney – October 22, 2012!!

October 23, 2012 in Election, Foreign Policy, Hope and Change, Mitt Romney, President Obama

Final Presidential Debate 2012  coverage from Lynn University in Boca Raton, FL. of the presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

BOCA RATON –  President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney face off in front of the cameras for a final time on Monday as opinion polls show their battle for the White House has tightened to a dead heat.

With 15 days to go until the November 6 election, the two candidates turn to foreign policy for their third and last debate, which starts at 9 p.m. (0100 GMT on Tuesday).

The stakes are high. The two candidates are tied at 46 percent each in the Reuters/Ipsos online daily tracking poll, and the debate will likely be the last time either candidate will be able to directly appeal to millions of voters.   Though few voters cite the war in Afghanistan or other national-security topics as a top concern, Obama can point to a number of successes on his watch, from the end of the Iraq war to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Romney will use worries about the prospect of a nuclear Iran and turmoil in Libya to try to amplify concerns about Obama’s leadership at home and abroad.   “Many voters are ready to fire Obama if they see Romney as an acceptable alternative,” said David Yepsen, director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Center at Southern Illinois University. “Foreign policy has not been a big driver of this campaign but I think Romney could add some icing to his cake if people say, ‘Hey, this guy is on top of world affairs.'”

Presidential debates have not always been consequential, but this year they have had an impact.

Romney’s strong performance in the first debate in Denver on October 3 helped him recover from a series of stumbles and wiped out Obama’s advantage in opinion polls.

Obama fared better in their second encounter on October 16, but that has not helped him regain the lead.

The Obama campaign is now playing defense as it tries to limit Romney’s gains in several of the battleground states that will decide the election.

Romney could have a hard time winning the White House if he does not carry Ohio, and a new Quinnipiac/CBS poll shows Obama leading by 5 percentage points in the Midwestern state.


More than 60 million viewers watched each of their previous two debates, but the television audience this time could be smaller as it will air at the same time as high-profile baseball and football games.

Much of the exchange, which takes place at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida, will likely focus on the Middle East. Other topics such as trade with China and the debt crisis in Europe could allow the candidates to circle back to the economic concerns that are topmost on voters’ minds.

Campaigning in Canton, Ohio, Vice President Joe Biden on Monday reminded voters of Obama’s pledge to pull troops out of Afghanistan in the next two years and pointed out that Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan have made no such guarantees.

“They said, quote, it depends. Ladies and gentlemen, like everything with them, it depends,” Biden said. “It depends on what day you find these guys.”   Romney accuses Obama of presiding over a weakening in U.S. influence abroad, but he has to assure voters he is a credible alternative to the president on the world stage. The former Massachusetts governor’s July trip to London, Jerusalem and Poland was marked by missteps.

The two men at their second debate last week clashed bitterly over Libya, a preview of what is to come on Monday evening. They argued over Obama’s handling of the attack last month on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed.

The Obama administration first labeled the incident a spontaneous reaction to a video made in the United States that lampooned the Prophet Mohammad. Later, it said it was a terrorist assault on the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks.

This shifting account, and the fact that Obama went on a campaign trip the day after the attack, has given Romney ammunition to use at Monday’s debate.   “The statements were either misleading by intention or they were misleading by accident. Either way, though, he’s got to get to the bottom of this,” Romney adviser Dan Senor said on NBC’s “Today” show.

Obama and his allies charge that Romney exploited the Benghazi attack for political points while officials were still accounting for the wellbeing of U.S. diplomats.

Regarding foreign policy overall, Obama’s allies accuse Romney of relying on generalities and platitudes.

“It is astonishing that Romney has run for president for six years and never once bothered to put forward a plan to end the war in Afghanistan, for example, or to formulate a policy to go after al Qaeda,” U.S. Senator John Kerry, the Democrats’ 2004 presidential nominee, wrote in a memo released by the Obama campaign on Monday.

Romney has promised to tighten the screws over Iran’s nuclear program and accused Obama of “leading from behind” as Syria’s civil war expands. He also has faulted Obama for setting up a politically timed exit from the unpopular Afghanistan war, and accused him of failing to support Israel, an important ally in the Middle East.

The Republican challenger is likely to bring up a New York Times report from Saturday that said the United States and Iran had agreed in principle to hold bilateral negotiations to halt what Washington and its allies say is a plan by Tehran to develop nuclear weapons.

The 90-minute debate, moderated by Bob Schieffer of CBS, will be divided into six segments: America’s role in the world; the war in Afghanistan; Israel and Iran; the changing Middle East; terrorism; and China’s rise.

(Additional reporting by Matt Spetalnick, Mark Felsenthal and Susan Heavey; Writing by Andy Sullivan; Editing by Karey Wutkowski and Paul Simao)

Read more: Lynn University in Boca Raton, FL. of the presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney & Pres Obama Each Dilivers Remarks At Annual Alfred E. Smith Dinner

October 19, 2012 in Election, Mitt Romney, Politics, President Obama

The presidential campaign, heavy on finger-pointing and recrimination, is taking a brief but abrupt detour so President Obama and Mitt Romney can play politics for laughs.   The rivals are quieting the bickering to address the venerable Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, a white-tie gala Thursday evening at New York City’s Waldorf Astoria Hotel that has been a required stop for politicians since the end of World War II.

[yframe url=’′]

In keeping with tradition, both candidates have prepared lighthearted fare for the fundraising event organized by the Catholic Archdiocese of New York for the benefit of needy children. That was the case almost precisely four years ago when Obama and GOP nominee John McCain poked fun at themselves and each other just a day after an intense presidential debate at Hofstra University on Long Island.

[yframe url=’’]

As in 2008, this year’s dinner comes in the wake of a confrontational debate, also at Hofstra, lending an air of drama to the pivot from acrimony to humor.   What’s more, the dinner’s host is Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has clashed with the Obama administration over contraception provisions in the new health care law. Dolan has said he received “stacks of mail” protesting the dinner invitation to Obama. But Dolan has sought to avoid playing political favorites, even delivering benedictions at both the Republican and Democratic national conventions this summer.   The dinner was Romney’s only public event Thursday. Obama planned to campaign in New Hampshire, one of the most competitive states in the election, before taping an appearance on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” with host Jon Stewart.   Romney and Obama were traveling to New York, a state firmly behind Obama, as their campaigns mounted an aggressive appeal for undecided female voters.   During stops Wednesday in Iowa and Ohio, the president mocked Romney’s remark during Tuesday night’s debate that as Massachusetts governor, he received “whole binders full of women” as he sought to diversify his administration. “We don’t have to collect a bunch of binders to find qualified, talented women,” Obama said.   Romney made his own pitch to women.   “This president has failed American’s women,” he told a crowd in Chesapeake, Va. “They’ve suffered in terms of getting jobs,” he added, saying that 3.6 million more of them are in poverty now than when Obama took office.   His campaign aired a television commercial that seemed designed to soften his opposition to abortion while urging women to keep pocketbook issues uppermost in their minds when they vote.   On the celebrity front, Obama picked up the endorsement of rock star Bruce Springsteen, who also backed the Democrat in 2008. In a letter on his website, Springsteen called the president’s term a “really rough ride.” But he said that “though grit, determination and focus, the president has been able to do a great many things that many of us deeply support.”   Springsteen planned to appear at two events for Obama on Thursday, including a rally in Ohio with former President Bill Clinton.   Romney traveled on Wednesday with comedian Dennis Miller, and singer Lee Greenwood warmed up his crowd in southeast Virginia.   The political dinner in New York is named for the former four-term Democratic governor of New York who lost the 1928 presidential race Republican Herbert Hoover. Smith was the first Catholic to run for president.   While the Catholic Church has differences with Obama on abortion, contraception and same-sex marriage, the Conference of Catholic Bishops also has clashed with Republicans, opposing GOP budget plans that cut programs for the poor and criticizing efforts to deny illegal immigrants tax refunds from the $1,000-per-child tax credit.

Read more:

Obama Campaign Ramps Up Attacks On Mitt Romney

October 8, 2012 in America's Collapse, Anarchy, Hope and Change, Mitt Romney, Obama's America 2016, President Obama, Propaganda, RomneyRyan, The Hope and The Change

“So you don’t think that’s questioning their patriotism when you say that?”   — An incredulous George Stephanopoulos of ABC News in an Oct. 18, 2004 interview asking President George W. Bush about his charge that Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry’s plan to withdraw from Iraq was “surrender.”

After President Obama’s sour showing in last week’s debate, he and his team adopted a curious seeming response.

Team Obama said Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, a man Democrats (and Republicans) have long been saying is a stiff, awkward, un-relatable bore, was a slick and artful politician.


Obama’s senior political adviser, David Axelrod, even told CBS News on Sunday that Romney’s performance was “Gantry-esque.” That was a reference to Elmer Gantry, Sinclair Lewis’ con artist evangelist whom Burt Lancaster played in spellbinding fashion in the movie version.

Gantry was a fraud — a hard-drinking womanizer whose fire and brimstone sermons were just a means to con rubes out of their money. He was an undoubtedly evil character.

So Romney, previously jeered as a gaffe-prone, bumbling blueblood who couldn’t connect with voters, suddenly turned into an evil, mesmerizing, tent-revival hustler?

Read more:

Romney The Winner! To Romney The Liar! – By The Propaganda Media!

October 5, 2012 in Election, Hope and Change, Mitt Romney, Politics, President Obama, Propaganda, RomneyRyan

Romney The Winner! To Romney The Liar! – By The Propaganda Media!

The Main stream media Working overtime to destroy Mitt Romney Or anyone that could stop Obama’s Re-Election

Msnbc Just For Laughs – Romney The Winner! To Romney The Liar! – By The Propaganda Media!

Fact Check: Obama says Romney opposed ending tax break – only he didn’t

A day after the Obama campaign countered Mitt Romney’s strong debate performance by accusing him of playing fast and loose with the facts, President Obama threw out a doozy of his own.   At a rally Friday in Fairfax, Va., Obama claimed Romney had outright rejected his proposal to end tax breaks for oil and gas companies.   “He said there’s no way that he’d close the loophole that gives big oil companies billions each year in corporate warfare,” Obama said, in the middle of a litany of complaints on Romney’s tax positions from Wednesday’s debate.   Just one problem. Romney didn’t say that.   Rather, the Republican nominee said that if tax rates are lowered as his plan calls for, the $2.8 billion in breaks for oil companies should be on the table.   Here’s what Romney said:   “But, you know, if we get that tax rate from 35 percent down to 25 percent, why that $2.8 billion is on the table. Of course it’s on the table. That’s probably not going to survive (if) you get that rate down to 25 percent.”   The president, though, has been trying to recover from Wednesday’s debate by casting the Republican nominee as an ideological shape-shifter. He claimed Thursday that the Romney who showed up to debate him is not the same Romney who’s been showing up on the campaign trail.   Campaign adviser David Axelrod called Romney a “serial evader” and an “artful dodger” in a conference call Thursday.   “What we learned is that he’ll say anything that makes him effective in the short term but vulnerable in the long term,” Axelrod said.   However, Romney told Fox News in an interview Thursday that the president just “wasn’t happy with the response to our debate.”   He reiterated he wants to bring tax rates down while reducing deductions. “What the president’s been saying and the reality are pretty far apart,” Romney said.

Read more:

Sarah Palin – Not So Fast Mr President – Obama Suggest Racism (2007 Video)

October 5, 2012 in Election, Mitt Romney, Obama's America 2016, Politics, President Obama, RomneyRyan

Obama ’07: Govt Doesnt Care About People In Nola As Much

Sarah Palin – Not So Fast Mr President

Many of you have seen the 2007 Speech in which then-Senator Obama Suggested that Because of Racism the federal government didn’t waive the Stafford Act to assist New Orleans after Katrina.

See Video

[yframe url=’’]


Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Interview On Hannity

October 4, 2012 in Election, Mitt Romney, RomneyRyan

Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan Interview On Hannity

Paul Talks About The Debate

Mitt Romney Talks About Debate