Posts Tagged ‘Mitt Romney’

Hold Multi-Millionaire Hillary Clinton To The Same Standard As ‘Out-Of-Touch’ ‘Filthy-Rich’ Mitt Romney Or Just Acknowledge You’re A Hypocrite

June 24, 2014

Hillary Clinton said she left the White House with her still-smiling-from-all-the-oral-sex husband “dead broke”:

“You have no reason to remember, but we came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt,” Clinton said. “We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education. It was not easy. Bill has worked really hard. And it’s been amazing to me. He’s worked very hard.”

I grant that Bill worked really “hard” and “very hard.”  But that was mostly Monica Lewinsky’s doing. truth to be told.

But the “worked hard” jokes aside, what an out-of-touch LIAR Hillary Clinton is.

Make that what a filthy RICH out-of-touch liar.

Even the reliably leftist Politifact rules Hillary’s ridiculous claim as “mostly false.”  And that after giving her every possible benefit of the doubt imaginable.

Do you know what “dead broke” means?  It means you’re begging your parents to let you have your old room back.  It means you’re sleeping on somebody’s couch.  Hey, it means you don’t have gracious parents or gracious friends and you’re HOMELESS.

It DOESN’T mean you’re paying your mortgages for multi-million dollar HOUSES (plural).

The year “dead broke” Hillary left the White House, she and “worked hard” Bill made over $12 million:

As Hillary Clinton backpedaled this week on comments that she and Bill Clinton were “dead broke” after leaving the White House, financial disclosure forms shed more light on just how shaky that claim really was.

Technically, Bill and Hillary Clinton were in debt when they left the White House. Financial forms filed for 2000 show assets between $781,000 and almost $1.8 million — and liabilities between $2.3 million and $10.6 million, mostly for legal bills.

But as the outgoing first couple, they had tremendous earning potential. And within just one year, their financial troubles were effectively gone.

Hillary Clinton’s Senate disclosure forms show that in 2001, they reported earning nearly $12 million. Most of that came from Bill Clinton’s speechmaking, and the rest came from an advance for Hillary Clinton’s book.

And that didn’t even include Hillary Clinton’s Senate salary, Bill Clinton’s pension or money made on investments.

As soon as they left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate and was earning a $145,000 salary; her husband’s pension was also north of $150,000.

All told, their financial snapshot in 2001 was drastically different than when they left the White House — assets were listed at between $6 million and $30 million; liabilities were between $1.3 million and $5.6 million. And despite their financial issues, they got help from family friend and fundraiser Terry McAuliffe (now, the governor of Virginia) to secure a loan at the time for a $1.7 million home in Chappaqua, N.Y.

These finer details made Clinton’s comment about being “dead broke” all the more questionable.

But it was a DEAD BROKE DOZEN MILLION, WASN’T IT?

And now this “dead broke” lady is worth at least $120 million:

NEW YORK, June 23, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — Hillary and Bill Clinton’s current net worth is US$120 million, according to a Wealth-X estimate released today, a far cry from the less than US$5 million they had in the bank in 2001 at the end of Bill’s tenure as US president.

The net worth of the former First Lady, US Senator, and US Secretary of State, who is a likely Democratic presidential candidate for 2016, is under intense media scrutiny after she said in a recent interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer that she and her husband were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001.

Wealth-X estimates that the combined net worth of the Clintons was below US$5 million when they left the White House. They amassed their current US$120 million fortune through fees from speaking engagements, revenues from their books, and her salary from her government positions.

Other sources have her wealth at $200 million, which she “earned” by “giv[ing] speeches to Goldman Sachs for $200,000 each.”  Which by the way puts her into Mitt Romney territory in pretty much every imaginable sense.

On the heels of her “dead broke” hypocrisy, hypocrite Hillary further twisted reality into a pretzel by declaring, “I’m not truly well off” like that arch-fiend who shall not be named [Mitt Romney]:

Hillary Clinton, who has a net worth upwards of $50 million, said in an interview that she is “unlike a lot of people who are truly well off.”

Clinton was derided for comments made last week that her family was “dead broke” when it left the White House in 2000 although they were far from the poverty line. Bill and Hillary Clinton have reportedly made more than $100 million since leaving the White House.

But Hillary, who charges a six figure speaking fee, says with a burst of laughter that she is not “truly well off” and that her wealth is the result of “hard work,” according to The Guardian.

America’s glaring income inequality is certain to be a central bone of contention in the 2016 presidential election. But with her huge personal wealth, how could Clinton possibly hope to be credible on this issue when people see her as part of the problem, not its solution?

“But they don’t see me as part of the problem,” she protests, “because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through dint of hard work,” she says, letting off another burst of laughter. If past form is any guide, she must be finding my question painful.

Hillary’s attitude on wealth has been the target of criticism, even from the left. Howard Fineman called her “dead broke” comment “disastrous” and “offensive to even some Democrats.” MSNBC’s Chuck Todd said that Hillary comes off as a “politician who perhaps only hangs out with millionaires and donors and feels poor by comparison.”

I mean, what would she have us believe?  Who paid $200,000 a speech from this woman?  Homeless people???  Obviously not: she got filthy rich telling filthy rich people exactly what they wanted to hear.  And as for her “hard work,” how hard is it to put your name on books that three other people are known to have actually written for her???

She got paid MILLIONS of dollars for work she didn’t do; but she “feels little people’s pain”???

I suppose that’s better than when she was earning her living by slandering little girls who were victimized by child rapists and getting hard-core pedophiles off scott free with technicalities.

Hillary Clinton is a LIFE of quintessential, abject, demon-possessed hypocrisy.  Which is why liberals love her so much.  She campaigns on “the war on women” when SHE warred on women far more viciously than damn near any man but the rapist she got off.  And she has the man-sized balls to run on “economic fairness” when she is every bit as filthy rich and every bit as in bed with the filthy rich as the people she demonizes.

When the Republicans have a rich candidate, you can count on the demonic-hypocrite Democrat Party and their media propaganda machine to demonize that candidate over wealth; when it’s THEIR candidate who is filthy rich – like FDR, like JFK, and more recently like John Kerry and now Hillary Clinton – suddenly the wealth of the candidate is entirely irrelevant.

And of course, the left plays the same abject hypocrite game with “the war on women.”  Obama pays his females far less than his males while demonizing EVERYONE ELSE for doing what HE DOESObama was documented has having created a hostile workplace for women.  Female White House staffers called it a “boy’s club.”  I mean, literally, if a man is beating and raping a little GIRL, but he’s for aborting the child he fathers as a result of his raping, liberals like Hillary Clinton are FINE with it.

This is a sick nation that is about to die as a result of it’s voting for the wrath of God in the form of every Obama policy that Hillary Clinton would gleefully continue and accelerate.

You either care for America’s children the way Hillary Clinton “cared” for the little girl she demonized and raped a second time, or you would willingly lay down your life if it would stop A SECOND Saul Alinsky radical from taking office.

Neville Chamberlain Strategy: Obama Fighting WWII All Over Again By Giving Up Czechoslovakia (Georgia) And Then Poland (Ukraine)

March 25, 2014

Was Russia’s seizure of Ukraine’s territory (Crimea) a big deal?

The NATO Secretary-General thinks it is:

(CNSNews.com) – Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine and annexation of its Crimea region is “the most serious security crisis since the end of the Cold War,” NATO secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Wednesday.

“We have seen Russia rip up the international rule book,” Rasmussen told an audience at Georgetown University in Washington DC. “Trying to redraw the map of Europe, and creating in just a few weeks the most serious security crisis since the end of the Cold War.”

The only real country left in Europe thinks that it is:

The Ukraine crisis is the worst in Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall and diplomacy is now essential to avoid military escalation, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said on Monday.

Russia’s intervention means “the threat of a division of Europe is real again,” Steinmeier said as he arrived for an emergency meeting of EU foreign ministers.

This ought to be a much worse crisis – and a much bigger deal – than it actually is: because the fact of the matter is that we signed a treaty to protect Ukraine and to keep this very thing from happening.  And we are more obviously weaker now than we have ever been now that we have dishonored ourselves by abandoning our commitment.

Every nation on earth will start to scramble to acquire nuclear weapons to protect their borders and there will be NOTHING we can do to persuade them to give up those weapons.  Because we have now proven that our word is no good and we will ultimately renege on whatever we promise we’re going to do.

This is a crisis that will continue to build and build long after Ukraine leaves the media’s ADD-style attention span.  You know, while the mainstream liberal media is micro-fixated on that Malaysian airliner that nobody has any idea whatsoever happened to.

But please don’t think Barack Obama did anything stupid while all this was going on: he still spent his usual countless hours formulating his NCAA brackets.

Of course the same Democrats who had demonized George Bush just for playing golf while there was a war going on only to hypocritically shrug their shoulders while Barack Obama has played more than seven times more golf than Bush did (164 rounds compared to Bush’s 24).

I noted in my obtaining of the above facts on presidential golf that the U.S. media that criticized Bush so heavily for golfing have been strangely silent about Obama’s “love for the game.”  It has been the FOREIGN media that has attacked Obama for his golfing as the classic evidence of an absentee president who fiddles around on the golf course while the world is burning.

When we compare Vladimir Putin to Barack Obama we get a bare-chested man riding a stallion compared to a weasel-thin, dumbo-eared metrosexual riding a bicycle while wearing mom jeans and a geeky helmet.

And don’t think the world – and particularly all of our enemies – haven’t noticed what the man who has gutted the American military is: weak.

I have on numerous occasions compared Barack Obama to Neville Chamberlain.  Chamberlain was, like Obama, a ruthless tyrant when it came to domestic policy.  Because of the power of his office, he could simply dictate.  And dictate he did.

But when it came to dealing with aggressive and even hostile foreign governments, the world sat in stunned horror as Chamberlain proved himself to be an empty suit.  He couldn’t dictate to Hitler with an executive order.  So he did nothing while Hitler grew stronger and stronger and bolder and bolder and more and more aggressive.  Until it took a war to stop him.

That’s where we’re at now.

Democrats want to tell us that Putin invaded Georgia and seized their territory when Bush was president.  And that is true.  But please consider two things that make that meaningless: 1) George Bush TRIED to avert the Russian seizure of Georgia in April of 2008 when he proposed that Georgia AND UKRAINE be allowed into NATO.  That move would have stopped Putin dead in his tracks.  Don’t tell me that Bush didn’t wisely see what completely blindsided Obama coming.  But weak, cowardly, gutless liberalism is weak, cowardly, gutless liberalism both here and in Europe.  And liberals wouldn’t tolerate such a “provocative move.”  Oh, no.  The spirit of Obama is the spirit of weakness and appeasement.  If we bare our throats and demonstrate to our enemies by our nakedness that we are not a threat, their reasoning goes, we will avert war and live in a Utopia of peace and harmony.  You’re seeing more of the same as we speak with Obama’s giveaway of the internet to countries that are hostile to us.  And 2) Putin seized Georgia with less than three months left in Bush’s presidency – and you tell me if you have any honesty whatsoever what Democrats would have done had Bush moved aggressively to respond to Putin after Obama and Democrats had spent basically eight years demonizing him as a warmonger.

What was Obama’s response to Putin over Georgia once he got into office?  Did he stand up to Putin?  Did he push for the rest of Georgia not yet seized and Ukraine that had not yet had its territory seized to become part of NATO like Bush had done?  Nope.  He was pretty good at spending time with his NCAA brackets between rounds of golf then, too.

Bush TRIED to solve the problem in Georgia and Ukraine before either happened.  What did Obama do???

In fact what Obama did was issue his infamous “reset” button with Russia.  He and Hillary Clinton, being as incompetent as they are morally stupid, botched that horribly, of course.  But it sent a crystal-clear message to Putin: America under Obama is weak.  They will let me get away with murder.  And so murder I will.

More evidence (and more conservatives who saw Putin’s aggression coming): Sarah Palin:

Remember what a bimbo the mainstream media made Sarah Palin out to be (remember, it’s OKAY to trivialize a woman as long as it’s liberals doing it to a conservative).

But in 2008, Sarah Palin predicted something in which she turned out to be right and every liberal on earth turned out to be a morally idiotic jackass.

She predicted that if coward and fool Barack Obama were elected president, it would embolden Russia into invading Ukraine given the kind of idiocy and naïve weakness he displayed when Putin invaded Georgia:

“After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”

Of course, the mainstream media savaged her for that.  What else is their mission if not a fools’ mission???

And Mitt Romney:

In their third presidential debate, President Obama ridiculed Mitt Romney when he said that Russia remained a threat to the United States. Here’s what Obama said in the debate:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that al-Qaida’s a threat because a few months ago when you were asked, what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia — not al-Qaida, you said Russia. And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.

But, Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s. You say that you’re not interested in duplicating what happened in Iraq, but just a few weeks ago you said you think we should have more troops in Iraq right now.“And the — the challenge we have — I know you haven’t been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong.”

Here’s how Mitt Romney responded. Notice how Obama tries to cut Romney off before he can make his point:

MR. ROMNEY: I’ll respond to a couple of the things you mentioned. First of all, Russia, I indicated, is a geopolitical foe, not —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Number one —

MR. ROMNEY: Excuse me. It’s a geopolitical foe. And I said in the same . . . paragraph, and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin, and I’m certainly not going to say to him, I’ll give you more flexibility after the election. After the election he’ll get more backbone.

Mitt Romney didn’t have “rose-colored glasses” when it came to Russia and Putin.  History records that Barack Obama had the most asinine-looking rose-colored glasses ever devised when it came to them.  And Democrats have the naked dishonesty to stupidly try to argue that nobody could have seen Putin’s seizure of Ukraine coming.

And, oh, yeah, that “flexibility” thing.  Remember that?

How did I title my article on that one?  “Traitor-in-Chief Barack Obama Caught Red-Handed On Tape Playing Naked Politics With Critical National Security

Obama’s open-mic moment with Russia:

Obama: This is my last election…After my election I have more flexibility.

Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir

And what do we have now?  The “worst crisis since the end of the Cold War” being played out after Obama has “more flexibility” to appease our enemy whom Obama went very much on the record to say was NOT our enemy at all.

How “flexible” are you feeling now, I wonder, Obama, you jackass?

So here’s the deal now that Obama has pulled America’s pants down and bent over for Russia and begged to have our national security and our prestige butt-raped: just like in World War II, we’re going to have to fight a world war to get our prestige that our weak, cowardly, gutless puke pissed away.

Obama’s “strategy” – if you could call his doing nothing a “strategy” – is this: where the world became outraged after Hitler’s second violation of a sovereign nation, what if instead of fighting the world had done NOTHING?  What if we’d just allowed Hitler to have what he wanted and not do anything about it?

You see, THAT’S “peace” to a liberal.  There is no war because we won’t fight.  No matter what.  And no matter what Hitler – or Putin – or any other thug does, we won’t fight.  So we have “peace.”

Here’s the really funny thing about this: I’ve been reading liberals’ op-eds on this Russia-Ukraine thing, and the consistent theme is that Republicans don’t really have a solution now, either.  So you can’t blame Obama for being weak because Republicans don’t want to go to war, either.

DAMN THESE PEOPLE ARE PATHOLOGICALLY DISHONEST.

Here’s the simple fact: as I already documented above, the “Republican response” would have begun going on six years ago back when we truly could have DONE something short of going to world war three.  The “Republican response” would have began with Sarah Palin’s wisdom – and then after that Mitt Romney’s wisdom – that Russia and Putin were true threats.  Which is something our failed Disgrace-in-Chief STILL doesn’t understand.

The “Republican response” would have been NOT to gut America’s military so that we are clearly too damn weak to do a damn thing about much of anything.  That probably would have stopped Putin right there.

The “Republican response” would have been to follow through on what Bush started and LEAD by insisting that Georgia and Ukraine become protected by NATO membership.  That DEFINITELY would have stopped Putin.

We never would have BEEN in this situation had there actually been a “Republican response.”

There comes a point when idiots have so destroyed something that it cannot be made right again.  And don’t try “spin” reality such that Republicans who CLEARLY saw this disaster coming and SAID it was coming wouldn’t have done anything different to avert it.

Now the same media that literally mocked Sarah Palin for seeing the Russian threat and mocked Mitt Romney for “stealing a [functioning] national security policy from the 1980s is dishonestly trying to say that Republicans should have to fix the world that Obama has damn-near singlehandedly broken beyond repair.

Remember Obama boasting of how he would restore America’s prestige?  Where is it now after Obama has repeatedly issued “red line” warnings and then done NOTHING and countries like Russia push us around like we’re the pussies that we have become under Obama?

It aint over.  Putin gave a speech justifying what he did in Crimea by talking about his duty to protect ethnic Russians wherever they may be.  And the thing is that following the collapse of the former Soviet Union – whose territory Putin wants to reclaim for Mother Russia – there are “ethnic Russians” all OVER the place.

Putin gave himself the carte blanche right to invade and seize virtually every single country in eastern Europe.

And now he’s massing Russian troops in a very possible move to invade Ukraine and seize the rest of it.

And Obama has already promised that there is no possible way that he will respond militarily.  Because he is a weak and stupid man who lays all his cards down on the table to make sure his enemies know his vulnerabilities in advance.

You wonder what Hitler would have done had Neville Chamberlain said, “Do whatever you want.  I won’t stop you.”  Probably nothing good.

Here’s one on that: Vladimir Putin has built his new hegemony primarily upon his exporting of Russian oil and natural gas and his ability to shut the tap on any European state that would oppose him.  What has Barack Obama done to counter this hegemony?  Has he promised to increase American oil and natural gas exports and essentially taken Putin’s power away without firing a shot?  That would counter his “oil is evil” philosophy, wouldn’t it?  And so while Putin is lording it over Europe and Europe is cowed into refusing to go along with any tough sanctions against Russia as a consequence, Obama STILL won’t allow the Keystone oil pipeline which he has kept shut down for YEARS.

This isn’t even about going to war – although Obama was nothing short of a FOOL to simply take war completely off the table and signal Putin his abject weakness in advance – it’s about simple reality and Obama’s inability to understand it.  OIL IS REALITY; Obama’s alternative energy is magical unicorn fairy dust.  Obama’s refusal to harness reality makes him a weak fool.

Meanwhile, China, which like Russia and very much unlike America has also been strengthening its military, ALSO has territorial ambitions.  Because weakness is the ultimate provocation.

And like Russia, they know we will do NOTHING.

World War II was the result of European and American weakness.  World War III will result from the same liberal weakness in Europe and America.

And you can lay the blame for that coming global war ENTIRELY on Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s feat.

A nation that allows tyrants to become emboldened has a death wish.  And America proved that it has a death wish when it stupidly elected and then even more stupidly re-elected Barack Obama.

I have long marveled at the precision of Bible prophecy in the last days.  The Bible rightly predicted that Israel would miraculously and against all odds be regathered as a nation.  It foresaw the rise of Russia as a world power which it had never been in history.  It described a last days confederation of countries led by Russia and Iran (Persia) that EXACTLY matches the Islamic states relative to their enmity to Israel today.  It anticipated the coming together of a European union which had never in history happened.  It knew that one day China and the kings of the east would be able to assemble an army of 200 million soldiers when at the time the prophecy was given there weren’t two-hundred million human beings on the entire planet.

The Bible prophecies all of these things and many, many others which have come to pass in these the last days of human history before the coming of the Beast.

But it never once mentions America.

That used to bother me greatly: how could it be that the mightiest nation in the history of the world isn’t even mentioned in Bible prophecy?

The answer is terrifying: the United States isn’t mentioned because it either won’t exist at all – having catastrophically imploded – or it will be so weak and so irrelevant that it won’t matter at all in the last days.

When you voted for “God damn America,” you voted to go extinct like the Dodo bird.

In the end, a leader will come in fulfillment of every Democrat’s and every liberal’s and every socialist’s fondest dreams.  His government will so take over the world that literally no one will be able to buy or sell anything without the government’s approval.  He will promise a Utopia but deliver the whole world into hell on earth.

And Barack Obama – along with the Democrat Party and everyone who supports them – is his useful idiot.

You won’t be able to stop him politically because Democrats and liberals all over the world will vote for him.  You won’t be able to fight him because liberals will take away all of your guns.

The coming of Antichrist and his mark of the beast didn’t have to happen, but the God who knows the end from the beginning knew 2,000 years ago – knew in fact before the foundation of the world – that the terminal generation of Americans would be a stupid and depraved one.

 

 

The Media Propaganda And Obama Class Warfare LIE That Romney Pays Less Tax Than Middle Class. And The Reason And Proof Why Low Capital Gains Taxes Are GOOD.

September 26, 2012

The degeneration of the media is astonishing.  Yes, the media always had a liberal bias; you could count on it.  But there was a time when we had journalists who fact checked.  Then we got journalism PLUS fact checking to correct the lies of the journalists.  And now we’ve  fact checkers correcting the lies of the fact checkers.

If I meet somebody who tells me, “I’m a journalist,” I know that there is an overwhelmingly statistical likelihood that that person is a) a doctrinaire liberal; and b) a biased doctrinaire liberal who insinuates his or her ideology, bias and prejudices into most of his or her reporting.

You need to understand how pathologically dishonest and biased the mainstream news media have become.  A couple of recent examples:

So this really isn’t that surprising.  Journalists are professional liars.  You can trust them to be dishonest.

And so here we go again:

ABC’s Karl Dissembles on Romney’s Tax Rate, But NBC Points Out He Pays Higher Percent Than Middle Class
By Brent Baker | September 22, 2012 | 14:09

Repeating a common mythology that a person’s federal income tax rate equals the effective tax rate they actually pay after deductions, ABC’s Jonathan Karl on Friday night forwarded the canard that Mitt Romney’s 14.1 percent rate is lower than what a $75,000 earner pays. NBC’s Peter Alexander, however, correctly noted “the average middle class American family pays roughly 13 percent.”

On World News, Karl reported that Mitt Romney “made $13.7 million last year and paid nearly $2 million in taxes. His effective tax rate, 14.1 percent.” Then, without citing any source, Karl asserted: “That’s a lower rate than an auto mechanic who made $75,000 in pay.”

Wrong. As USA Today noted in January, Romney’s 14 percent income tax rate is “a higher tax rate than the majority of taxpayers” pay and “the average effective tax rate for taxpayers with AGI of $1 million or more is 25%, according to the Tax Foundation analysis.”

In “Tax bracket vs. tax rate: They’re two different things,” reporter Sandra Block explained: “The average effective federal tax rate for American taxpayers is 11%, according to an analysis of 2009 IRS data by the Tax Foundation, a non-profit research organization. For individuals with adjusted gross income of $50,000 or less, the average effective tax rate is less than 5%, according to the Tax Foundation….”

More in my NB post: “Nets Use Romney’s Taxes to Advance Obama’s False ‘Fairness’ Narrative,” which included a table showing those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 pay an average effective income tax rate of 7 percent, 8 percent for those taking in $75,000 to $100,000 and 12 percent for those between $100,000 and $200,000.

From the start of Karl’s September 21 story, closed captioning corrected against the video by the MRC’s Brad Wilmouth:

The most interesting thing about these tax returns are that even though Mitt Romney paid a low tax rate, he actually voluntarily paid more in taxes than he had to. The bottom line on Mitt Romney’s taxes: He made $13.7 million last year and paid nearly $2 million in taxes. His effective tax rate, 14.1 percent. That’s a lower rate than an auto mechanic who made $75,000 in pay. Although he made almost $14 million, not one penny came from wages or salary. Instead, his money came largely from investments, which are taxed at the much lower capital gains tax rate…

Peter Alexander on Friday’s NBC Nightly News:

It has been a rough couple of weeks for the Romney campaign, now trailing in the polls. And by putting out Romney’s tax returns today, the campaign is hoping it can put this issue to bed so it doesn’t have to deal with any more negative headlines closer to the election.

Campaigning in Las Vegas today and under pressure for months to be more transparent about his personal finances, Mitt Romney released his 2011 tax returns, revealing that he and his wife Ann paid nearly $2 million in federal taxes, on income of nearly $14 million, largely from investments, a tax rate of 14.1 percent. That’s slightly more than the 13.9 rate the couple paid in 2010. The average middle class American family pays roughly 13 percent…

So on top of the dishonesty that we saw from the rest of the mainstream media, CBS’s 60 Minutes piled on with the dishonesty in its interview with Mitt Romney:

Pelley: Now, you made on your investments, personally, about $20 million last year. And you paid 14 percent in federal taxes. That’s the capital gains rate. Is that fair to the guy who makes $50,000 and paid a higher rate than you did?

Romney: It is a low rate. And one of the reasons why the capital gains tax rate is lower is because capital has already been taxed once at the corporate level, as high as 35 percent.

Pelley: So you think it is fair?

Romney: Yeah, I think it’s the right way to encourage economic growth, to get people to invest, to start businesses, to put people to work.

Scott Pelley’s question was a) biased and b) based entirely on a false premise.  Because he gets his “facts” COMPLETELY wrong and proceeds to beat Romney over the head with a dishonest conclusion from those false “facts.”  In fact, Mitt Romney does NOT pay a lower rate than the guy who earned $50,000.  In FACT Romney pays more than TWICE as high of a rate – 14.1 percent versus 7 percent – as the guy who earns $50,000 a year in the adjusted income tax rate that actually matters (as the rate you actually pay taxes at).

There are so many ways that the media lies: they lie in deciding which stories to cover and deciding which stories will not get any coverage; they lie about what aspects of those stories they cover will get covered or ignored; they lie in salad picking their “experts” or witnesses in order to cherry pick the point or conclusion they want the audience to draw.  They further lie in how they edit and package the story.  And there are other ways they lie in production.  But now we’re to the point where the media lies by simply dishonestly inventing “facts.”

The fact that Pelley lied and made up bogus “facts” gave Barack Obama to exploit those lies in his own demonization of Mitt Romney.

The question “is it fair” about low capital gains taxes is as naive as it is idiotic.  Keeping capital gains taxes low encourages investment and encouraging investment increases jobs.  How is it “fair” to gut job creation?

I would ask if it’s fair for journalists and for the current president of the United States to make up their own facts and attack Mitt Romney with lies.

The best way to document that fact is to point out that Bill Clinton was the man who cut capital gains taxes and benefitted enormously from doing so:

American Thinker points out that the Clinton income tax hike of 1993 did NOT bring in ANYWHERE NEAR the revenue Democrats had predicted:

The Clinton years provide lessons on the effects of tax increases and decreases. The American left attributes the successful economy of the Clinton years to the former and ignores the impact of the latter in order to justify their appetite for the increases they would have us believe will provide additional tax revenues today.
 
The effects of increasing taxes on Treasury receipts can be seen in the Clinton and Democrat-controlled congressional tax increase of 1993, one of the largest in history. Despite a more robust job market following a recession, the 1993 tax increase didn’t accomplish what Democrats expected. The tax increases added very little to treasury receipts despite their magnitude. Reports from the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Internal Revenue Service all agree.

In fact, the balanced budgets of the Clinton years didn’t occur until after a Republican Congress passed and the president reluctantly signed a 1997 tax bill that lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, added a child tax credit, and established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates.

So what did both Clinton’s and later George Bush’s capital gains rate cuts do?  Let’s pick up where the article left off:

The Clinton tax policies of the early ’90s were based on rate increases and luck — the luck provided by a normal growth cycle that began in 1992 as America emerged from a mild recession and a communications revolution. It was tax relief that improved receipts following the disappointing outcome of the 1993 tax hikes and made the Clinton economy successful. The 1997 rate reduction on capital gains unleashed the economy, causing capital investment to more than triple by 1998 and double again in 1999. Treasury receipts for this category of tax obligation increased dramatically. Without tax relief and the internet/communications revolution, the second Clinton term would likely have seen tax revenues decline in a lagging economy.

There is no reason to believe that tax increases will perform any differently this time under a different aggregation of hopeful Democrats.

To find a pure, easily illustrated example of tax decreases boosting the economy and Treasury receipts, one need only look at the current rates on capital gains and dividends. When Congress passed the 15-percent tax rate on capital gains in 2003, and again following the 2006 extension, Democrats protested that large deficits would result.

The new leadership in Washington and those who support them would allow this tax cut to expire to “generate revenue” for the federal government. Based on data from Congress’s own budgetary agency, they should consider whether expiration will have the effect they desire.

For anyone willing to read it, the January 2007 Congressional Budget Office annual report settles any debate. Citing the original CBO forecasts of capital gains tax revenue of $42 billion in 2003, $46 billion in 2004, $52 billion in 2005, and $57 billion in 2006, Democrats who opposed the rate reduction in 2003 claimed that the capital gains tax cut would “cost” the federal treasury $5.4 billion in fiscal years 2003-2006.

Those forecasts were embarrassingly wrong. The 2007 CBO report revealed that capital gains and dividends tax collections were actually $51 billion in 2003, $72 billion in 2004, $97 billion in 2005, and $110 billion in 2006, the last two years nearly doubling initial forecasts.

In other words, forecasts in earlier CBO reports were low by a total of $133 billion for the four-year period. This tax rate reduction stimulated enough additional economic activity to more than offset forecasted losses.

Reductions in tax rates for capital gains were arguably the most successful fiscal initiatives of the past thirty years.

You will find that when George W. Bush cut the tax rates across the board, TAX REVENUES SHOT UP DRAMATICALLY.  And even the uberliberal New York Times was forced to acknowledge that Bush INCREASED tax revenues following his tax cut:

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Here are the numbers following Clinton’s signing the Republican-sponsored and passed capital gains tax rate cut in 1997:

Capital gains taxation revenues collected by the federal government:

1996  –  $66 billion
1997  –  (capital gains tax rate cut goes into effect)
1997  –  $79.3 billion
1998  –  $89.1 billion
1999  –  $111.8 billion
2000  –  $127.3 billion

Dick Morris – who was Bill Clinton’s primary political adviser at the time and engineered Clinton’s successful triangulation strategy that won him reelection – wrote it up this way:

When Clinton took office he did all the wrong things. He raised taxes sharply, hiking the top bracket from 35% to 39.6% and raised taxes on gasoline. The result was that the economy, which had been recovering, staggered. GDP growth dropped to 0.7% in Clinton’s first quarter (down from 4.3% in Bush’s last quarter) and stayed around 2% for the rest of 1993. Personal income rose 6.3% in 1992 under Bush but slowed to 4.1% under Clinton in 1993.

The tax increases Clinton passed failed to generate the revenue he had expected. The tax paradox set in. Martin Feldstein, former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, summed it up in his Wall Street Journal article, “What the ’93 Tax Increase Really Did,” published on October 26, 1995. He said taxpayers reduced their incomes when they saw the tax hikes coming. Feldstein writes that “the Treasury lost two-thirds of the extra revenue that would have been collected if taxpayers had not changed their behavior.” Because of Clinton’s tax hikes, real personal income fell by $25 billion. High income taxpayers, facing the prospect of a tax increase reported 8.5% less taxable income in 1993 than they would have if their tax rates had not changed. The tax paradox!

Then Clinton got wiped out in the Congressional elections of 1994, losing control of the Senate and the House – the first time the Republicans had run the House in forty years!

Clinton suddenly saw the error of his ways and began to hold down spending and push for a tax cut. In 1997, he and the Republican Congress combined to cut capital gains taxes from 28% (the rate to which Bush had increased it) to 20%. The result was electrifying! Real wage growth was 6.5% in the four years after the tax cut compared to minuscule wage growth of 0.8% over the four years after Clinton’s tax increase!

And the tax paradox was again evident: lower rates produced higher revenues! In 1996, the year before the capital gains cut, the tax collected revenues of only $66 billion. In the four years after the cut, they averaged $100 billion a year. But, what was more important was the surge in economic activity that the capital gains tax cut generated. In 1996, before the tax cut, there were $261 billion in capital gains in America. In the three years after the cut, capital gains rose to an average of $440 billion. The increased tax collections and the greater economic activity were such that they pushed the budget into a surplus for the first time since the 1950s.

Is it “fair” that I’m not as handsome as Brad Pitt?  Is it “fair” that I’m not as good of a swimmer as Michael Phelps or as fast a runner as Usain Bolt?  Is it “fair” that I’m not as smart as Albert Einstein?  Is it “fair” that I’m not as creative or talented as Robert Plant or Jimmy Page?  Obviously (and rather unfortunately!) I could go on and on and on with this ad naseum.  Instead, read this on the danger of “fairness.”

I’m sorry to be the one to break your bubble of idiocy, liberal: NOBODY SAID LIFE WAS FAIR.

And I just wish that evil demagogues would quit trying to stir up bitterness and envy by constantly trying to artificially and frankly cynically trying to impose a radical and Marxist doctrine of “fairness” on the world.  Because it does the exact OPPOSITE of what they say it will do.

The bottom line is patently obvious to anyone but a fool: keeping low capital gains rates means that more people will invest more money because they will have the obvious incentive of actually being able to keep what they risk their money to earn – A PROFIT.  If there is more investment, there will be more economic activity and in turn more job creation.

An interesting exchange between ABC News anchor Charles Gibson and Barack Obama during a debate shows us where Obama is:

You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.”

It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

You can reward wise practices or you can punish them. You can reward individual initiative or you can punish it. Obama is the latter even though the former is far and away the best for society.

If you think it’s “fair” to punish society – including the poor who benefit from the jobs that are created for them so that they can take care of themselves and their families and move up the economic ladder to a better life – just to punish rich people, you are the one with a huge mental and frankly moral problem.

But that mentally and morally deranged form of Marxist psychosis is exactly where Barack Obama and the radical left is.

What is interesting is that the middle class that Obama keeps pretending he’s helping KNOW that he and his media propaganda machine are liars.  Which is why Obama is getting crushed by the middle class vote which favors Romney by FOURTEEN POINTS.  Obama and the media liars aren’t trying to appeal to the middle class who know better; they’re trying to persuade the unfortunately ignorant that their lies are the truth and that the truth is actually a lie.

If The Presidential Election Was Up To The American Middle Class, Mitt Romney Would DESTROY Obama By 14 Points (55 percent to 41 percent!)

September 25, 2012

Mitt Romney is heavily winning the middle class vote.  Which might just be why Obama is working so hard to destroy the middle class.

Given all the demonization of Mitt Romney as a greedy rich bastard who would attack the middle class by Obama and his roaches and the Democrat Party and all their roaches and the mainstream media (who are pretty much all roaches), this is actually pretty amazing; but Mitt Romney utterly ANNIHILATES Barack Obama with the middle class vote.

The money portions of the following article:

The past several weeks have been filled with news stories, editorials and columns heaping criticism on the tactics and strategy of the Romney campaign. Many of these opinion pieces even suggested that Romney’s only hope for winning is to make substantial changes to his campaign. Much of this analysis is based on the premise that Romney is out of touch and has not been making an affirmative case to middle-class voters. His comments at a private fundraiser in May were pointed to as an illustration that he could never identify with and win the support of many middle-class voters. We took a special look at middle-class voters, and middle-class families in particular, in this latest POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll and found that not to be the case. In fact, on every measure it is Romney who is winning the battle for the support of middle-class families.

[...]

 In our latest POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll with middle-class families, which comprise about 54 percent of the total American electorate and usually split in their vote behavior between Republicans and Democrats, Romney holds a 14-point advantage (55 percent to 41 percent). Middle-class families are more inclined to believe the country is on the wrong track (34 percent right direction, 62 percent wrong track), are more likely to hold an unfavorable view of Obama (48 percent favorable, 51 percent unfavorable), and hold a more favorable view of Romney (51 percent favorable, 44 percent unfavorable) and Paul Ryan (46 percent favorable, 35 percent unfavorable) than the overall electorate. These middle-class families also hold a majority disapproval rating on the job Obama is doing as president (45 percent approve, 54 percent disapprove), and turn even more negative toward Obama on specific areas; the economy 56 percent disapprove; spending 61 percent disapprove; taxes, 53 percent disapprove; Medicare 48 percent disapprove; and even foreign policy 50 percent disapprove.

Who speaks for the middle class?  It is Mitt Romney and it is very much NOT Barack Obama.

And that pretty much utterly destroys most of the Obama campaign and Democrat Party and mainstream media talking points (which for the record are pretty much lies).

Republican poll analysis: Romney winning with middle-class families
By: Ed Goeas and Brian Nienaber
September 24, 2012 04:34 AM EDT

In early August, with our Republican analysis of the POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll, we wrote “… this election will remain close until the final weeks of the campaign.  There will be ups and downs for both campaigns throughout the next 13 weeks, but the basic dynamics that are driving this electorate and framing this election remain well in place.”   Two conventions, and tens of millions of campaign dollars later, we continue to hold that belief.  While there have been dozens of polls released during the past six weeks that have had Mitt Romney up by as much as 4 points and Barack Obama up by as much 8 or 9, those variations have had more to do with sampling variations than with real movement in the campaign.

Yes, there have been gaffes on both sides that have been the focus of both the news media and opposing campaigns, but the dynamics that have been the real drivers of the campaign, the economy and deeply negative feelings about the direction of the country, have not changed.  There have also been negative stories about the internal operations, messaging and strategy of both presidential campaigns.  In August, leading into the Republican convention, there were multiple stories about the Obama campaign operation and internal fights about both message and strategic direction that led one to believe the wheels were coming off.  Now it is the Romney campaign’s turn.

(Also on POLITICO: Sheldon Adelson: Inside the mind of the mega-donor)

The past several weeks have been filled with news stories, editorials and columns heaping criticism on the tactics and strategy of the Romney campaign.  Many of these opinion pieces even suggested that Romney’s only hope for winning is to make substantial changes to his campaign.  Much of this analysis is based on the premise that Romney is out of touch and has not been making an affirmative case to middle-class voters. His comments at a private fundraiser in May were pointed to as an illustration that he could never identify with and win the support of many middle-class voters.  We took a special look at middle-class voters, and middle-class families in particular, in this latest POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll and found that not to be the case. In fact, on every measure it is Romney who is winning the battle for the support of middle-class families.

Overall, Obama leads Romney by just 3 points on the ballot (50 percent to 47 percent) – which before we rounded up, is actually a 2.6 point lead and only up a half-a-percentage point from the 2.1 point lead for Obama in our last Battleground poll in early August.  In our latest POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll with middle-class families, which comprise about 54 percent of the total American electorate and usually split in their vote behavior between Republicans and Democrats, Romney holds a 14-point advantage (55 percent to 41 percent).  Middle-class families are more inclined to believe the country is on the wrong track (34 percent right direction, 62 percent wrong track), are more likely to hold an unfavorable view of Obama (48 percent favorable, 51 percent unfavorable), and hold a more favorable view of Romney (51 percent favorable, 44 percent unfavorable) and Paul Ryan (46 percent favorable, 35 percent unfavorable) than the overall electorate.  These middle-class families also hold a majority disapproval rating on the job Obama is doing as president (45 percent approve, 54 percent disapprove), and turn even more negative toward  Obama on specific areas; the economy 56 percent disapprove; spending 61 percent disapprove; taxes, 53 percent disapprove; Medicare 48 percent disapprove; and even foreign policy 50 percent disapprove.

(Also on POLITICO: Mitt: Fundraising focus Obama’s fault)

All of this data make clear that Romney has won the strong support of middle-class families and is leading the president on an overwhelming majority of key measurements beyond just the ballot.  In fact, when respondents were asked who, Obama or Romney, would best handle a variety of issues, Romney led on all but one including the economy (+9 percent), foreign policy (+3 percent), spending (+15 percent), taxes (+7 percent), Medicare (+2 percent), and jobs (+10 percent).  Ironically, the one measurement Obama led Romney on was “standing up for the middle class” (+8 Obama), reinforcing that often the Democrats win the message war with the middle class, but not their hearts and souls.

Looking at this presidential election overall, intensity among voters is high with Republicans, Democrats, and now independents, and is at levels more comparable with the final days of a presidential election than six weeks out from Election Day.  In fact, fully 80 percent of voters now say that they are extremely likely to vote.  Even with the past few weeks containing some of the toughest days of earned media for the Romney campaign, and perhaps as a surprise to Washington insiders, Romney continues to win Republicans (Romney by a net +87 percent) by the same margin Obama is winning with Democrats (Obama by a net +88 percent), and is still winning with independents (+2 percent).  Romney has majority support with voters over the age of 45 (+7 percent), with men (+6 percent), with white women (+9 percent), and with married voters (+14 percent).  In addition, Romney has solidified his base.  Support among conservative voters exceeds 70 percent (73 percent), his support among very conservative voters exceeds 80 percent (83 percent), and his support among Republicans exceeds 90 percent (91 percent).  Romney is also receiving a higher level of support among Hispanics (40 percent), which is driven by higher support from Hispanic men.   

(PHOTOS: 13 who won’t quit Mitt)
Democratic pollster Celinda Lake has often made the point that Democratic voters are becoming more secular and Republicans more faith based.  That certainly appears to be holding up in this election.  Digging a little deeper on the presidential ballot, Romney has majority support (51 percent) among Catholics, which in past presidential elections has been one of the most predictive demographic groups of the eventual outcome.  Even further, Romney is a winning majority across all religions amongst those who attend services at least weekly (59 percent) or monthly (52 percent), while Obama is winning among those who attend less frequently, never, or are nonbelievers.

(PHOTOS: Romney through the years)

For most voters, however, this election is still about pocketbook issues.  Fully 66 percent of voters select a pocketbook issue as their top concern.  The Romney camp should feel good going into the three presidential debates knowing he has majority support (Romney 53 percent/Obama 44 percent) from these economically focused voters.

In fact, even with all of the misleading partisan attacks on the proposals from Ryan to reform Medicare, a majority of seniors (61 percent) select a pocketbook issue and not Medicare as their top issue of concern and nearly 6 in 10 seniors (58 percent) are voting for the Romney-Ryan ticket.

In addition to their high level of intensity about casting a ballot, many voters are already notably engaged in the campaign.  A strong majority of voters (60 percent) say they watched both the Republican and the Democratic national conventions.  The ballot among these highly attentive voters is tied with 3 percent undecided.  The conventions took a race that was a statistical tie, and simply drove up the vote intensity of all voters.  At the same time, there are enough undecided and soft voters remaining for either candidate to win. In fact, even at this stage of the campaign, 13 percent of those making a choice on the presidential ballot indicate that they would consider voting for the other candidate.

A significant number of voters report that the upcoming presidential and vice presidential debates will be extremely (11 percent) or very (12 percent) important to their vote decision.  (Twenty-six percent of Obama’s supporters currently place this high level of importance on the debates as does 20 percent of Romney supporters.)  This means the debates are one of the best opportunities available for Romney to take votes from Obama.  If Romney can continue to make a solid case about turning around the economy and the direction of the country in contrast to the president’s failed economic policies, these voters will be watching and many of them are currently Obama supporters.

Presidential reelection races are almost always about the incumbent and whether or not they should be given an additional four years in office.  This race looks to be no different.  There is no sign of any good economic news on the horizon and two-thirds of the American electorate is focused on pocketbook issues as their top concern.  Fifty-seven percent of these voters disapprove of the job the president is doing on the economy, 62 percent disapprove in his handling of the budget and federal spending, and 54 percent believe that Romney would be better at job creation. Yes, Romney has the issue advantage with these pocketbook-focused voters, and is winning their support by 53 percent to Obama’s 44 percent.

More important, in this latest set of data in the POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll, is the fact that Romney is also winning by a strong 14-point margin over Obama with middle-class families, a group of voters that is not only a majority of the American electorate, but is usually seen as the ultimate target group in any presidential election.

Romney has particularly been demonized by the axis of evil (Obama camp, Democrat Party and mainstream media) over his “47%” quote. 

Romney was obviously trying to simplify something that is more complex and committed the sin of oversimplifying.  The Obama who can do no wrong with the mainstream media can get away with a thousand of those, but Romney can count on the media “reminding” voters of that remark at least 20 times a day every single day until the election.  Basically, there are obviously two groups who will vote heavily for Obama: the lazy class and the elite class.

Hollywood is so massively in Obama’s corner you’re going to be seeing desperate appeals supporting ObamaCare even in primetime network dramas.  And what is Hollywood?  It’s a bunch of greedy liberal hypocrites who make buttloads of money while pursuing tax credits for the richest people ( hiring lobbyists to do it, btw) and outsourcing to foreign countries so they can make even MORE money.  Uberliberal Michael Moore is a particularly loathsome specimin of Hollywood hypocrite, for the record.

They’re rich.  They pay taxes (well, some of them do, excluding the ones like Marc Anthony who most fervently support Obama while thinking they’re above paying taxes).  Just like some of Obama’s staff actually stoop to pay the taxes they owe.

And then there are all the lazy little low class bottom feeders who do exactly what Mitt Romney said they do.

And the axis of evil deliberately misrepresented that “47 percent” statement to try to demonize Romney with the middle class.

But apparently a whopping majority of the middle class know full damn well who the malicious deceitful hypocrites Obama, Democrats and their media propagandists are.

There are a lot of despicable people undermining the once great and powerful America.  But by a wide margin – and completely contrary to the false narratives the Democrats and their media allies keep telling us – the middle class are not among them.

That fact makes me feel better about the American people than I have felt for quite a while.

Just yesterday, I documented how pathologically dishonest the mainstream media are in a microcosm with their blatant overestimation of how many people showed up at an Obama event.  That same day I also documented that Obama has destroyed 4 million jobs and gutted labor participation in America.  And if that wasn’t enough, I also documented how truly un-American Obama is with this “Obama States of America flag” garbage.

That’s why NOBODY in the middle class ought to be voting for Obama.

Mitt Romeny’s Speech And Religion: What He Should And Shouldn’t Say To Evangelicals About His Mormonism

August 30, 2012

As I write this, Mitt Romney is yet hours away from giving his RNC convention speech later this evening.  That said, his speech is obviously already written, and moreover he and his speechwriters wouldn’t have listened to a pissant like me, anyway.

So I’m not really writing this to Mitt Romney; I’m writing it to his audience – especially to his evangelical audience (of which I happen to be a member).

Should Mitt Romney talk about his [Mormon] religion?  My answer is, “Yes and no.”  Let me talk about the “no” part first.

What should Romney NOT say to the evangelicals who make up a whopping portion of his voters?

Mitt Romney should not try to convince evangelicals – who know better – that he is a Christian just like they are.  He simply isn’t; Mormonism has a very different understanding of the Person and Work of Jesus Christ than do orthodox, Trinitarian, evangelical Christians.

If Mitt Romney tries to tell evangelicals that Mormonism – which holds that “God” Himself was merely once a created being (punting on the question of who created our particular “God”), and that this same “God” who was Himself created then later created Christ who is only an angel (and in fact the spirit brother of Lucifer the devil) – is no different from evangelical Christianity, he will do nothing more than offend us and actually LOSE our vote.

This is where the more troubling aspects of Mormonism come into play:

From Brigham Young (as in “Brigham Young University”):

“When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later.”

and:

“When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family”.  Young explained that Adam “was begotten by his Father in heaven” in the same way that Adam begat his own sons and daughters, and that there were “three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael.” Then, reiterating, he said that “Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.”

Hey, Mitt, whatever you do, please don’t tell me you’re a Christian just like I am.  Because I will be legitimately offended and start wondering what else you might be lying about.

Adam Smith likewise made it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that Mormons are NOT Christians like orthodox Christians:

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

 19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

 20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time.

Joseph Smith very specifically said that no orthodox, historical Christian denomination was valid.  Which is to say that from the very beginning, Mormonism recognized the gulf between Mormons and those who had called themselves “Christian” for 2,000 years before Mormonism.

Please don’t contradict your own Mormon history and tell us that you’re a “Christian,” Mitt.  Because unless you repudiate your Mormonism, you just aint a Christian by any orthodox or historical standard.  And if you just flat-out try to deny the crucial and critical differences between Mormonism and Christianity, you will outrage the very people you need to depend upon most for your election.

That’s the “no” part to the question, “Should Mitt Romney talk about his religion.”  What about the “yes” part?

Mitt Romney should talk about faith in the generic sense of the term; not the specific content of his faith, and not that his “faith” is a Christian faith.  Mitt Romney should indicate that he is a religious person with a religious worldview.

And I submit that Mitt Romney should – without directly claiming himself a “Christian” – affirm a Judeo-Christian worldview.

Because while Mormons do NOT embrace the same theology as historic, orthodox Christianity as understand by evangelicals, Mormons most certainly DO have a Judeo-Christian view of the world and have a Judeo-Christian view toward morality in general.

And given that, I am comfortable having a “Mormon” who isn’t going to do anything in any way, shape or form to propagate his Mormonism, as my president.  Especially given the fact that the man he is running against has a form of “Christianity” that is even FURTHER away from historic, orthodox Christianity than Mormonism.

When the militant homosexual agenda is “Christian,” as it is on Obama’s view; when the militant abortion agenda that has murdered 54.5 million babies since Roe v. Wade was imposed in 1973 is “Christian,” as it is on Obama’s view; when “Christianity” is a Marxist core with a candy coating of “liberation theology,” as it is on Obama’s view; when “Christianity” allows you to spend some 25 years in a Marxist, racist, anti-American “church” as Obama’s “Christianity” allowed him to do in Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church” (and see here); when “Christianity” means explicitly rejecting individual salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone into a Marxist “collective salvation” as Obama’s “faith” does; you are very far from “Christian,” indeed.

The true nature of Obama’s “salvation” in his own words:

“… working on issues of crime and education and employment and seeing that in some ways certain portions of the African American community are doing as bad if not worse, and recognizing that my fate remain tied up with their fates, that my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country.

“Collective” as in “collectivist.”  And “collectivist” as in “communist.”  Because Obama’s “Christianity” is a candy coating over a hard nut of Marxism just as Jeremiah Wright’s “Christianity” is.

Any orthodox Christian can tell you – and quote the Bible to prove it – that individuals are saved by their individual and personal faith in Jesus Christ in a dependence upon His righteousness and His substitutionary death in our place on the Cross.   My faith – regardless of the color of my skin – is not “tied up” in ANYTHING other than the Person and Work of Jesus Christ, God the Son, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, who shares in and participates in the divine essence of the eternal Father.

Barack Obama does NOT have a Judeo-Christian worldview in any way, shape or form.

Obama’s “Christianity” is Jeremiah Wright’s “them Jews” Christianity:

And it most definitely is NOT “Judeo-Christian.”

This will very probably be the very first election in American history in which neither major party candidate is a true Christian.

That said, I am FAR more comfortable as a Christian and particularly as an evangelical Christian voting for Mitt Romney than I am voting for a radical Marxist heretic like Barack Hussein Obama.

Mitt Romney needs to convey those significant ways that he thinks just like evangelical Christians without insulting us by saying he’s no different than we are.  He needs to focus on morality and on worldview and get away from specific content of the Christian – or Mormon – faith.

Meet A Couple Who DON’T Accuse Mitt Romney Of Killing Them With Cancer

August 11, 2012

What is interesting from this story is how the New York Times really intended this to make Mitt Romney look bad.  But sometimes somebody does something that’s so decent it’s impossible for even the best professional slanderers to make his act look bad:

NYT introduces us to couple Romney didn’t try to kill with cancer
posted at 3:21 pm on August 10, 2012 by Mary Katharine Ham

No, instead, he gave them a personal loan for a house. A house filled with cancer.

Nope, just a regular house they rented from Romney in the Houston suburbs. After Romney’s initial investment in five rental properties went south, he ended up holding on to them for more than a decade, often renting them at a loss. The Times notes it’s one of few miscues in Romney’s investment history. When he did offload the homes, the renters were given first dibs, but Timothy and Betty Stamps were unable to get a loan for the home because Timothy had recently lost his job.

“Then I got this phone call, personally, from Mr. Romney, asking if we really wanted to buy the house,” Mr. Stamps, 63, said in an interview the other day at the barbershop he now runs. “I said, yes we did. And he said he would loan us the money. He really helped us when we needed it.”

Here’s the NYT being careful to explain how this should be taken as part of its narrative of Romney as rich meanie, but the Stampses see it slightly differently:

Nearly lost among the blizzard of hedge funds, thoroughbred horses and other gold-plated investments in Mitt Romney’s personal financial disclosures, the interest from the $50,500 mortgage is loose change to Mr. Romney, whose net worth has been estimated at close to a quarter-billion dollars.

Yet for the Stampses, who have been writing $600 monthly checks to “Willard M. Romney” for 15 years, the money they borrowed from him to buy their home in 1997 was life-changing…

When Mr. Stamps took the call from Mr. Romney, he and his wife, a nurse, had all but given up hope of being able to buy the house they had been renting for five years. Mr. Romney told him it looked like the couple had been taking good care of the property and that “we would be good people to buy it,” said Mr. Stamps. Mr. Stamps said he never heard from Mr. Romney again, and only became aware of who he was when he started running for president four years ago.

“His name came up somewhere,” he said, “and my wife and I said to each other, ‘That’s the guy we bought our house from!’”

This story had been previously unreported, but not because no one was in touch with the Stampses:

Mr. Stamps said that he and his wife had received calls in recent months from strangers who “seemed to be looking for negative stuff” about Mr. Romney, but that the couple had nothing to say to them. (The Stampses recently refinanced the original 30-year loan; the new mortgage, still with Mr. Romney, was dated June 12 but signed just two weeks ago. Details of the interest rate were not included in the public record.)

Andrea Saul, a Romney campaign spokeswoman, declined to answer questions about the Texas investment.

Props to the NYT for reporting on this. Many will say it’s just another Romney investment designed to benefit him, even if it did also benefit a regular American couple on tough times. But a) yes, meet capitalism— a beautiful mechanism whereby people can freely engage in mutually beneficial economic decisions every single day and b) he didn’t have to put his neck out and offer a personal loan to someone a bank deemed unqualified. He demonstrated personal faith in the Stampses and it turned into a cool story in which one American could make allowances for another American’s circumstances and take a risk a bank wouldn’t. Liberals find this noble when Freddie and Fannie do it with your money. It’s nice to keep track of all these stories to even out the icy Mitt narrative.

Exit question (Allahpundit™): Or, did he just buy them off to prevent revelations of his secret plan to inflict lots and lots of death?

It’s funny how most people are looking for gold and will look through a ton of dirt to find that gold.

In the case of liberals, they’re looking FOR the dirt and will throw out all the nuggets of gold in their search for it (e.g., as they toss through Sarah Palin’s garbage and even begged the public for help examining all of her emails looking for dirt on her).

How To Take On Obama (Chicago Thug Style) At His Own Demagogue Game

August 11, 2012

I thought this was interesting.

Before getting to how to “out-Obama Obama” using his own Chicago thug style politics against him, first read this for the overview of the facts:

Bipartisan group of legislators demands stronger probe into Delphi pension scandal
4:33 PM 08/09/2012

Twelve lawmakers wrote to House oversight committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Sen. Joe Lieberman asking that they expand current probes into a Department of Treasury scandal that left 20,000 non-union Delphi retirees without their pensions after the 2009 General Motors bailout.

The members — Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio, Thad Cochran of Mississippi and Roger Wicker of Mississippi, and Reps. Pat Tiberi of Ohio, Steve Stivers of Ohio, Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, Dan Burton of Indiana, Bill Johnson of Ohio, Paul Gosar of Arizona, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio and Gregg Harper of Mississippi — are led by Ohio Republican Rep. Mike Turner.

“We are writing to request that the committees which you chair submit additional requests for documents from the Department of the Treasury and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) on matters pertaining to the unjust termination of Delphi salaried retiree pensions in the federal government’s bailout of General Motors,” the lawmakers wrote. “As you may know, the pensions of Delphi salaried retirees were significantly reduced in the aftermath of the bailout, while their union counterparts were made whole. These retirees, regardless of labor affiliation or not, spent their careers working alongside one another and should not be treated differently in their retirement. This decision of the Auto Task Force, Treasury, and the PBGC continues to affect roughly 20,000 current and future retirees across the nation.”

The bipartisan support for this renewed investigation call — Kaptur is a Democrat — undercuts the Obama campaign’s accusations that his GOP rival, Mitt Romney, and Turner are trying to “politicize” this scandal.

Portman, who’s widely considered to be on Romney’s short list of potential vice presidential candidates, said in a statement that he has “met with these hard-working Ohioans who lost a significant portion of their pension benefits while other retirees from the same company received far better treatment.”

“The idea that the administration played politics with their pensions is beyond disappointing, and it deserves answers,” Portman said. “The administration’s decisions have caused pain and loss to thousands of workers and their families as a result of their reduced benefits. This matter deserves continued scrutiny from Congress, and the administration must be called upon to account for its decisions.”

This renewed investigation call comes in the wake of emails The Daily Caller obtained and first published on Tuesday showing that senior White House and Treasury officials were behind the termination of pensions for 20,000 non-union Delphi salaried retirees.

Those emails show that the Treasury Department, led by Secretary Timothy Geithner, was the driving force behind terminating those pensions — a move made in 2009 while the Obama administration implemented its auto bailout plan. The emails contradict sworn testimony in which several Obama administration figures have consistently said that the decision to terminate the pensions came from the PBGC. The PBGC is a federal government agency that handles private-sector pension benefits issues. Its charter calls for independent representation of pension beneficiaries’ interests.

29 U.S.C. §1342 maintains that the PBGC is the only government entity that is legally empowered to initiate termination of a pension or make any official movements toward doing so. (RELATED: Obama campaign says Romney wants to politicize Delphi pension scandal, despite his months of silence)

In their letter to the committee chairmen, the lawmakers express the desire to ensure that wrongs are righted in this case, and make sure those responsible for government wrongdoing are held accountable. “Given the nature of the correspondence made public at the House committee’s hearing on July 10, 2012, and in recent press reports, it is our hope that these additional requests will yield a thorough production from the Treasury and the PBGC,” they wrote. “We believe that these requests will ensure that Congress is provided full and complete disclosure and that these agencies are held accountable to the American taxpayers.”

On a conference call with reporters on Wednesday, Turner said there’s a suspicion that Obama administration officials committed illegal acts during this activity in 2009, but regardless, the actions were absolutely improper — and that the officials involved have misled congressional investigators during a series of several House oversight committee hearings.

“[The emails] show that the administration has been misrepresenting this process,” Turner said on the call. “They have previously said that the pension decisions were made by General Motors and they said they were by PBGC. The emails that are now surfacing clearly show that this was run by Treasury in back door deals with the Auto Task Force, the PBGC and, of course, General Motors — [which was] acquired by the taxpayers through the Treasury. [It was] all being coordinated through the Treasury Department, resulting in what we believe may be illegal activity — but is definitely improper activity.”

Representatives for Issa and Lieberman haven’t immediately returned TheDC’s requests for comment on the letter.

So a Free Republic member gave us an easy step-by-step how-to on how to use Obama’s own constant “my opponent is hurting the American worker out of his partisanship and greed”-style campaigning against him (the Daily Caller link is to the article I cite above):

Here is a Mitt Romney Ad I’d like to see – (Vanity)
http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/09/bipartisan-group-of-legislators-demands-stronger-probe-into-delphi-pension-scandal/ ^ | Self

Posted on Friday, August 10, 2012 12:41:18 PM by Nicojones

The Ad opens with a written declaration that 20,000 non-union Delphi retirees lost their pensions while the Union employees were able to keep them as part of Obama’s auto bailout.

Each Ad should then feature one of the Delphi employees that lost their pension. With 20,000 to choose from, they should feature the saddest stories – guys with sick families and medical bills, foreclosures. etc. Each story should be juxtaposed with the Union employees that were allowed by Obama to keep their pensions. At the end, the narrator should point out that Obama is not a man of the people, fighting for the working stiff. He’s just the man bought and paid for by the Unions, fighting for special interests!

I wrote about what Obama did at Delphi and the 20,000 workers who got completely screwed so Obama could illegally and immorally give union workers more benefits.  The Obama White House schemed with Big Labor bosses to preserve UAW members’ costly pension funds by shafting their 20,000 nonunion counterparts.

If you are one of the five percent of American workers who are owned by private sector unions, good for you.  If you are one of the rest of the American workers who AREN’T in a union, than Obama will screw you the same way he screwed the workers at Delphi.

And the “beautiful” thing about this strategy – a strategy that Obama is using in EVERY SINGLE ad and campaign appearance – is that you’re not limited to Delphi workers.  How many million Americans have lost their jobs in Obama’s economy?  How many Americans could tell a story of, “Before Obama, my family was doing fine.  But then Obama’s failed policies cost me my job, and now we’re living in our car.  Obama hates my family.  Obama hates American workers.  Obama hates America.”

Romney could win the White House by doing nothing more than feeding Obama his own medicine – through a fire hose.

Mitt Romney To Announce His VP Pick Saturday Morning At 8:45 A.M. EST. I Believe It Will Be Paul Ryan, And Here’s WHY.

August 11, 2012

“Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor. “Barabbas,” they answered.  “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?” Pilate asked. They all answered, “Crucify him!”  “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”  When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”  All the people answered, “Let his blood be on us and on our children!”  Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified. — Matthew 27:21-26

I was quite surprised to hear that Mitt Romney had announced that tomorrow was “the big day” to announce his vice president selection.  Like most, I assumed he would be making it immediately before the GOP National Convention.

I was also somewhat surprised to hear that, apparently, Romney had called Marco Rubio and told him that he would NOT be the running mate on the ticket.

We don’t know who it will be, of course, but there’s been a fair amount of intelligent conservative speculation that it may very well be Paul Ryan.

That will be an incredibly bold choice from a man who has a been cautious for most of his life, but this is what I believe Romney’s reasoning is:

Marco Rubio would have been a good choice if Romney was thinking in terms of winning more Hispanics or winning Florida.  And Rob Portman would have been a good choice if Romney felt that he would need Portman’s pull to carry Ohio.  Nikki Haley or Kelly Ayote would have been a decision to pursue “the women’s vote.”  But none of these excellent choices would define the race the way Paul Ryan would. 

Paul Ryan is all about the budget – and by that I mean more than ANYODYand the need to get dead serious about reducing our spending.  Versus Democrats who haven’t bothered to even TRY to pass a budget for 1,199 days and a president who has not received a SINGLE DEMOCRAT VOTE for one of his depraved and lunatic budgets in three years.  Meanwhile as Obama and Democrats have made reckless irresponsibility their “governing strategy,” we just found out our true debt and our real fiscal gap just grew by a massive $11 trillion to – and you’d better sit down - $222 TRILLION:

Republicans and Democrats spent last summer battling how best to save $2.1 trillion over the next decade. They are spending this summer battling how best to not save $2.1 trillion over the next decade.

In the course of that year, the U.S. government’s fiscal gap — the true measure of the nation’s indebtedness — rose by $11 trillion.

The fiscal gap is the present value difference between projected future spending and revenue. It captures all government liabilities, whether they are official obligations to service Treasury bonds or unofficial commitments, such as paying for food stamps or buying drones.

[...]

The U.S. fiscal gap, calculated (by us) using theCongressional Budget Office’s realistic long-term budget forecast — the Alternative Fiscal Scenario — is now $222 trillion. Last year, it was $211 trillion. The $11 trillion difference — this year’s true federal deficit — is 10 times larger than the official deficit and roughly as large as the entire stock of official debt in public hands.

This fantastic and dangerous growth in the fiscal gap is not new. In 2003 and 2004, the economists Alan Auerbach and William Gale extended the CBO’s short-term forecast and measured fiscal gaps of $60 trillion and $86 trillion, respectively. In 2007, the first year the CBO produced the Alternative Fiscal Scenario, the gap, by our reckoning, stood at $175 trillion. By 2009, when the CBO began reporting the AFS annually, the gap was $184 trillion. In 2010, it was $202 trillion, followed by $211 trillion in 2011 and $222 trillion in 2012.

If in fact Mitt Romney picks Paul Ryan, THAT reckless fiscal insanity will be the central defining issue of the campaign.

More than any election in American history, this would be a true “monumental choice” election: do you want Obama and a welfare America that will utterly implode under the supermassive weight of hundreds of trillions of dollars of debt, or do you want to have at least a chance of national survival???

Many are saying that the Democrats are “licking their chops” over the prospect of running against Paul Ryan.  Democrats have demonized Paul Ryan viciously, using a look-alike to depict him pushing an elderly lady in a wheelchair off of a cliff. But the actual reality is just the opposite – as the facts prove.  For what it’s worth, the left was going to basically run against Ryan anyway.

Over one hundred million Americans are now on some form of welfare.

And Obama just gutted the work requirement that the Republican Congress had passed and Bill Clinton had signed back in 1996 in order to receive welfare.

Food stamps have increased 53 percent since Obama took office, from 30 million receiving them in 2008 to 46 million people receiving them today.  In the 1970s when the food stamp program began, one in fifty Americans were on them; one in seven Americans are on them now.  And more Americans are filing for disability today than are getting jobs, with the number of Americans expected to go on disability expected to jump 71 percent in the next ten years.  For the record, only 1 percent of people who go on disability ever return to work.  You either think these are good things or you think they’re terribly bad things.  And this November you’re going to vote which you think it is.

If you want to abdicate all personal responsibility and parasitically suck off the tit of a government that takes from the producers to hand out to those who vote Democrat until America collapses, then vote for Obama.

If you are looking around and saying, this can’t possibly continue. America is simply doomed on the path we’re on, then vote for Romney.

No one in America is more able to get our spending, deficit and debt under control than Paul Ryan.

If Paul Ryan is the guy, more than any other guy that Romney could pick, America will face a true choice in November. 

City after city is beginning to collapse into bankruptcy as the choices to run up debts and deficits made by Democrats run their toxic course.  Liberal California is leading the way into total fiscal disasterLiberals keep pointing to the example of Europe even as Europe proves more every day that it is a terribly foolish model to follow.  And the liberals that gave us nearly ALL of the $222 trillion debt that is utterly unpayable and utterly unsustainable keep demaning that we double down and then triple down and then quadruple down until America simply implodes.  And don’t think the left doesn’t literally HOPE that day happens.

This election will mark the greatest and most monumental choice for the direction of America and the world since the one I cite at the beginning of this article.  I pray that we have more wisdom than that last momentous decision.  Israel was wiped off the map less than forty years later as a result of their choice; our disaster will ensue far faster than that if we choose foolishly and wickedly for Obama.

The Terrible Truth Behind Obama’s Super PAC Ad: Over Nine Million People Are Now DEAD Because Of Barack Obama.

August 9, 2012

Over 2,420,000 Americans die every year.  Over Obama’s four years in office, that is more than nine million people who have died.

And by the logic of Obama’s wicked super pac, Barack Obama is worse than Hitler.  Obama is responsible for every single one of those 9 million-and-counting deaths.  Because if Mitt Romney is responsible for Joe Soptic’s wife’s death, then Barack Obama is every damn bit as responsible for those nine million deaths that occurred during his watch.

In fact, Obama will still be responsible for those 2.42 million Americans who die every year for SEVEN YEARS after he’s out of office given that this woman died seven years after Romney left Bain.  Which means that Obama is going to ultimately be responsible for 26 million dead Americans by the logic of his own evil and frankly psychotic ad.

The facts reveal how genuinely despicable and depraved this pro-Obama ad campaign is.

  • Mitt Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999.  Joe Soptic lost his job two years later during a period when the entire steel industry crashed due to Asian dumping.
  • Every single one of the American steel companies that went under were unionized, so it is far more likely that unions were the problem rather than Bain Capital.
  • At the time that Soptic lost his job, his wife had a job of her own that had health benefits.  She in fact continued to have her own insurance until 2003.  And she wasn’t diagnosed with cancer until 2006.
  • Mrs. Soptic died five years AFTER Soptic lost his job and SEVEN years after Romney left Bain.  This article provides an excellent timeline of the events.
  • Joe Soptic is nothing more than a serial liar and a vicious union thug.  And for him to cynically deceitfully use his wife’s death as a dirty political cheap shot is utterly beneath contempt.

Now, to the sheer vileness of Joe Soptic and the sheer lawbreaking dishonest corruption of the Obama campaign:

If Soptic looks familiar that’s because he was one of the narrators of the ads the Obama campaign launched in May. You may remember it as the ad where one of Soptic’s co-workers compares Bain Capital to a “vampire.” The new ad is by Priorities USA, an Obama approved SuperPAC. Priorities USA is prevented by law from coordinating its activity with the Obama campaign, but this ad is clearly meant to look like a continuation of the previous Obama campaign ad. Soptic is even wearing the same grey shirt he wore in the previous ad. And the claim about the death of his wife has been part of an Obama for America slideshow for months.

Here’s the skinny on Fluke:

Sandra Fluke is an abject liar. She is claiming that women are spending $3,000 on birth control: WOMEN CAN BUY GENERIC BIRTH CONTROL AT WAL-MART FOR $9 A MONTH. That’s $324 over three years – kind of a long way from $3,000.

Oh, and I understand she could get birth control at Sam’s for $5.

Oh, and for what it’s worth, she could get condoms for FREE.

Which is to say that $3,000 birth control is just another demonic lie from the demonic left. Liberals like Sandra Fluke and Nancy Pelosi who brought this liar in to falsely testify have no honesty or integrity and they simply lie like the hell they are going to go to to manipulate stupid people.

Further, since Sandra Fluke is trying to force universities – and in particular THE PRIVATE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY THAT SHE CHOSE TO GO TO – to provide birth control, let’s point out the fact that Georgetown law school costs $23,432.50 PER SEMESTER. NOT COUNTING TEXTBOOKS, fwiw. Forty seven thousand dollars a year is no problem for this “slut,” but that $108 she has to spend on birth control for her own private business is just busting her tiny little balls.

Rather than demonize and attack the Catholic Church and her universities, why doesn’t Sandra Fluke go after the REAL crisis facing university students: THE OUT OF CONTROL TUITION INFLATION which is even WORSE at public colleges and universities that are completely dominated by the left???

So you’ve got one of the most vicious, one of the most vile, one of the most pathologically dishonest ads EVER RUN IN POLITICS by the Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action blaming a woman’s death on Mitt Romney, and then IMMEDIATELY you’ve got “women’s health activist” Sandra Fluke – a documented liar – opening a new attack against Romney over “women’s health.”

The dishonesty of Barack Obama is simply mindboggling.  And Obama’s reliance on an activist who made a name for herself lying in congressional testimony along with what he’s doing through his super PAC are just two of thousands of proofs.

Then again, what can you expect from a man who has now murdered more than 9 million people???

The day I head about the toxic, racist, Marxist, anti-American church that Barack Obama attended for over twenty years, I knew that he was a genuinely evil man.  Barack Obama is a liar without shame, without honor, and without any decency at all.

THIS crap is why Mitt Romney should NOT release ANY more of his tax returns.  You’ve got demon-possessed cockroaches displaying over and over again that honesty and reality don’t matter to them.  If Romney gives them more of his records, they will have more to distort and make up lies about.

Update 8/9/12: This anti-Romney ad is so evil, so vile, and so utterly dishonest that even vicious union thug Joe Soptic is now trying to walk it back:

In an interview, Mr. Soptic said he thought the ad was fair. But he also said of Mr. Romney: “I’m not blaming him for her death. I wouldn’t do that.”

You watch that damn demonic ad and you tell me how the whole damn POINT of that ad is not to demonize Mitt Romney for Ilyona Soptic’s death.  Soptic has made demonizing Mitt Romney his career now that there’s a market for it.  Of course, with Obama’s Marxist economic policies, about the ONLY damn time “the market” gets to demand anything is when “the market” is his re-election campaign.

But the facts are out, you damn liberal roaches. And boy are you roaches ever a lousy bunch of roaches.

Now we find out that Joe Soptic actually got a different job after the steel plant closed down and before his wife got sick and had the option of putting her on the plan - but turned it down:

Mr. Soptic said that after he lost his job, he found work as a school custodian about six months later and had the option to put her on his insurance plan. But he opted not to, he said, because he could not afford the more than $350 monthly premium on the $25,000 salary he was making, on top of paying his mortgage and a daughter’s college tuition. Ilyona Soptic was diagnosed with cancer in 2006 and died that year.

Of course, it’s Romney’s fault Joe Soptic refused to cover his family.  His and Bush’s!!!

That ad was so completely evil and so ridiculously false it is unreal.  The Democrat Party is at sewer freaking bottom and there’s no way it will ever come back up until the Party denounces and renounces their worst and most demonic president in history.

Now we know that there are intimate links between the “independent” Obama super PAC that produced this ad and Joe Soptic and the Obama campaign:

Obama camp denies knowledge of cancer tale it told in May
By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – Wed, Aug 8, 2012

Oops? President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign washed its hands Wednesday of an independent group’s vicious (and misleading) ad effectively blaming Mitt Romney for the death of a laid-off steelworker’s wife from cancer. Campaign officials flatly denied any knowledge of the facts in the case—but it turns out the widower told the same story on an Obama campaign conference call in mid-May. (The Obama campaign responded late in the day: See update below).

“We have nothing, no involvement, with any ads that are done by Priorities USA. We don’t have any knowledge of the story of the family,” Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters aboard Air Force One on Wednesday.

The ad features Joe Soptic, who lost his job and his health benefits after Romney’s Bain Capital closed the GST Steel plant in Kansas City, Mo., in 2001. Soptic later told CNN that his wife had health insurance through her own employer from that point to 2002 or 2003, when she left that job because of an injury—a detail that undermines the ad’s heartbreaking narrative.

“I don’t know the facts about when Mr. Soptic’s wife got sick, or the facts about his health insurance,” deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter told CNN on Wednesday.

But there’s a problem. As Politico first reported, Soptic told essentially the same story in a May 14, 2012, conference call hosted by the Obama campaign. Here’s what he said then, according to a partial recording of the call passed along by a Republican official:

After we lost our jobs, we found out that we were going to lose our health insurance, and that our pensions hadn’t been funded like Bain promised they would be. I was lucky to find another job as a custodian in a local school district. They gave me some health insurance, but I couldn’t afford to buy it for my wife. A little while later she was diagnosed with lung cancer. I had to put her in a county hospital because she didn’t have health care, and when the cancer took her away, all I got was an enormous bill. That put a lot of stress on me: I thought I’d be paying it off until I died myself. That probably wouldn’t have happened if Bain kept its promise and I was allowed to keep our health insurance.

“It’s upsetting what Mitt Romney and his partners did to us,” he added.

The revelation drew an immediate rebuke from Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams, who said Obama and his campaign “are willing to say and do anything to hide the president’s disappointing record.”

“But they’re not entitled to repeatedly mislead voters,” he said.

You need to understand that the same deputy Obama campaign manager Stephanie Cutter who said, “I don’t know the facts about when Mr. Soptic’s wife got sick, or the facts about his health insurance” is the SAME deputy Obama campaign manager Stephanie Cutter who was WITH Joe Soptic only a month ago when he told her and a bunch of other Democrats all about when Mr. Soptic’s wife got sick and the “facts” about his health insurance.

You also need to understand that the Obama campaign did NOT “wash its hands” of this ad.  Rather, reporters repeatedly tried to get the Obama campaign to denounce it and Team Obama pointedly refused to do so every single time (see here and here).  They COULD have washed their hands of it and denounced the ad, but pointedly refused to do so.

In fact, it is now a documented FACT that the Obama campaign used the Joe Soptic “Mitt Romney murdered my wife!” charge before his Super PAC did. Here is a screenshot from an OBAMA ad:

So Obama would be washing his own toxic shit off their hands if he ever bothered to wash his hands.

The Obama campaign is now caught red-handed in a documented, vicious lie.

And this follows Harry Reid – the leader of the United States Senate – using openly Orwellian fascist tactics to say that in Reid’s and in Obama’s and in the Democrat Party’s America, the left can make vicious, unsupported allegations and it then becomes incumbant upon the target of the slander to prove that the attack is not true.  And the Obama White House endorses that tactic.  And every single Democrat who votes for his or her party is on record supporting said open, Orwellian fascism.  THAT is what the Democrat Party now stands for.

Update, 8/10/12: Here’s a good summary of the lies and critical omissions that are involved on this Obama ad:

The lies in the video are unbelievable! (Soptic Cancer Video)

Lie Number One: Mitt Romney closed the Plant.

Truth: Bain Capital closed the plant two whole years AFTER Romney left Bain Capital.

Lie Number Two: Mrs. Soptic died because she lost her insurance when Mr. Soptic lost his job.

Truth: Mrs. Soptic had a job and had health insurance of her own at the time GST Steel was closed by Bain Capital.

Lie Number 3: Mr Soptic said he couldn’t get insurance at his replacement job.

Truth: He was offered insurance for his wife at his new job (she had lost her job and lost her insurance) but he instead chose to pay for his daughter’s college tuition.

Lie Number 4: The video sequence makes it seem like Mrs. Soptic died soon after Bain Capital closed GST Steel.

Truth: She died 22 days After she found out she had Cancer BUT GST steel closed 6 YEARS EARLIER!

Lie Number 5: In the video Mr. Soptic makes it seem like Bain Capital just closed the plant and let everyone go.

Truth: Bain Capital offered to buy out their jobs prior to the plant closing by Mr. Soptic’s own admission yet its not mentioned in the video.

.

Top Economist Roubini: ‘The London Olympics Are An Economic Failure As London Is Totally Empty’. Boy, That’s DISCONCERTING!

August 6, 2012

Remember how Mitt Romney offered an honest assessment of the London Olympics based on his expertise and was demonized by both the London and American liberal media?

Revenge is a dish best served to thousands of empty seats:

ROUBINI: ‘The London Olympics Are An Economic Failure As London Is Totally Empty’
Gus Lubin|Aug. 5, 2012, 7:41 AM

Economist Nouriel Roubiniis tweeting doom about the London Olympics this morning.

From @Nouriel:

  • UK policymakers scared so much folks before the Olympic that London is a deserted city: non-olympic tourists are away; londoners are gone!
  • The Olympics are an economic failure as London is totally empty: hotels, restaurants, streets. They scared all off with crowd excess warnings
  • By scaring every1 to stay out of London with warnings about too many people coming here it turns that London is totally empty, a zombie city
  • RT @NotgiamattiThe Yogi Berra effect! Nobody goes there, it’s too crowded.
  • The West End – usually packed on any Saturday night – was an empty waste land last nite: barely a soul to be found in theaters, bars, etc
  • They scared away all non-olympic tourists that pack london all summer;they pushed most londoners to escape;they told 2million to work @ home
  • RT @_garrilla that’s the ‘olympic economy’ – all dispacement & deadweight (oh, and hot air)

Meanwhile London retailers are begging the transport system to stop warning about congestion problems, according to Telegraph‘s Graham Ruddick.

Retail chief Richard Dickenson told Ruddick: “We know there is a displacement effect. Instead of normal tourists you get sports tourists, we knew that. But we didn’t expect the impact on the London catchment and commuters.”

London taxi drivers have reported a 20-to-40 percent drop in income this month, with industry representative Steve McNamara calling the Games “a complete and utter disaster.

Don’t miss: 43 signs that the London Olympics will be a disaster >

Apart from when I was in the Army – and simply unable to watch the Olympic Games – this is the first time in my life that I haven’t watched any of the Olympic Games at all.  In the past I’ve watched as much as I could and even been drawn into the frequently media-generated biographies of the athletes that many sports fans find so useless.  Maybe it’s because my president has convinced me that America is not an exceptional nation and our athletes are no better than the athletes of any other countries; maybe it’s because of the way the press politicized the Games by demonizing Mitt Romney the way they did; maybe it’s simply because I’ve got an awful lot of oars in the water and simply do not have time to watch the Games unless I give up two other things I’m doing that I think are more important.

All I know is that I have no desire to watch the Olympics.  Which means apparently Londoners and I have something in common.

And I know that what Mitt Romney said about the Olympics – which was simply common freaking sense when you examine what he said in light of the problems that London had been having – turned out to be right after all.

Oh!  And I know that Obama didn’t build all those medals that Michael Phelps is now wearing around his neck


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 513 other followers