Romney Was A Republican Governor
Jul 9, 2012 Political
Mitt Romney is not the most conservative choice for president but he is the presumptive nominee and one thing is for certain, he is a hell of a lot more conservative than Obama. He is not a Socialist and he does not believe in the Rules for Radicals agenda that Obama and his minions follow. Romney is pretty much a decent guy who is straight laced. His life, unlike that of Barack Obama, is an open book. One can track Romney from a very young age and know all about him.
With Obama, many years are missing or hidden. Obama’s life is certainly NOT an open book.
Many of us do not like Obamacare and the massive taxes imposed by it. Those on the left claim Romney started the thing in Massachusetts and that Obama copied Romney’s plan.
Perhaps, but Romney was the Governor of a state and states have the latitude to try such things. The federal government does not. Romney’s plan was paid for with state money and if it did not work the state could get rid of it. If people did not like it they could move to another state.
Obamacare uses our tax money to pay for people all over the country (citizen and illegal alike) and it, like any government program, will never be killed off once it is implemented. Additionally, if people do not like it there is no place for them to go.
So yes, Romney was a Republican governor but what does that have to do with anything?
The states that elected Republican governors in 2010 have an average unemployment rate that is lower than the Obama rate and that is lower than most states run by Democrats.
Yep, the states with Republicans in charge have a lower average unemployment rate than their Democrat counterparts and Obama at the federal level.
This was not the case for states that elected Democrats in 2010. For instance, the unemployment rate in New York actually went up. On average, states that elected Republican governors in 2010 saw their unemployment rates decrease at a faster clip than states that elected Democrats and the unemployment rate at the national level did.
This is yet another example of how the so-called “blue state” model is not working. [linked article]
Obama was never a leader in anything. He did not run a business and he had no leadership positions in the state or US elected offices he held prior to his current position. The only “leadership” he was involved in was as a community agitator. Other than that, nothing, zip, zilch, zero, nada…
So Obama was never a governor but Romney was and a Republican one at that.
If Republican governors have lowered the unemployment rate and Democrat governors have not which person should run the country; the guy with no experience or the Republican governor who has decades of leadership experience?
The nation is stuck at 8.2% unemployment as Obama’s failed policies have not made a difference. Obama and his failed policies have made things worse and he wants four more years to finish the job, to get it right, to make things better…
He has been a wrecking ball in three and a half years. If he gets four more years he will be free (remember, he told the Russians he would have more flexibility) to put the final nail in the Country’s coffin.
If you had a company that needed help to survive, which of these two would you pick to help you? If you had a million dollars to invest, which of the two would you want to invest it for you?
You know the answer as well as I do.
Obama must go.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: job growth, lies, Obama, republican governors, romney, unemployment
Socialism Studies Teacher Loses Mind Defending Dear Leader
May 21, 2012 Political
A North Carolina teacher who has been identified as Tanya Dixon-Neely was caught on video berating a student and trying to intimidate that student and others because they questioned her fact of the day. The fact of the day was that Mitt Romney was a bully back in high school.
Ignore for a moment the reality that calling this statement a fact is a bit of a stretch. Even if the hit piece by the Washington Post was true the incident was allegedly a prank and seems to be isolated. To say Romney was a bully based on this one incident is a bit of a stretch but let us suppose that one incident does a bully make.
This is where the teacher goes off the rails. A student had the audacity to point out that Obama was a bully in high school as well. The student asked the teacher; “Didn’t Obama bully somebody, though?” The teacher responds; “Not to my knowledge.” Then several students told her he had (Obama said so in his book). The teacher loses her mind and says that the two are not comparable.
The students argue that she needs to be fair and if she is going to trash one side for something she has to trash the other side for the same thing.
Dixon-Neely continues screaming at the children and telling them that the incidents are not the same because Obama is the president and Romney wants to be the president. The logic escapes me on this especially since the issue is about what took place before they were adults.
This supposed teacher makes several factually incorrect statements. She states that it is a criminal offense to say anything bad about a president. This is, of course, untrue. It is illegal to make threats against the president but people are free to say anything about the president that they want. It if was illegal to say bad things about a president half the population would be committing crimes during every presidency.
Dixon-Neely tells her students that no one will say anything bad about Obama in her classroom. When the student continues by telling her he will say what he wants she tells him that he will not in her classroom. The student then remarks that people talked “sh*t” about [George W] Bush (something the students admit they did as well) and the teacher tells him it was because Bush was sh*tty. She then, in a complete contradiction, claims that it is her job as a Social Studies teacher to make sure no one talks badly about any president past or present. This from the woman who just said Bush was a sh*tty president. You can also bet the house that she talks badly about Bush now and she did when he was president.
It appears to me that this teacher is not only a liberal, Obama supporter who is pushing an agenda but also has a chip on her shoulder regarding how people treat Obama. She makes the claim that Obama deserves the same respect as every other president and that people were arrested for talking bad about Bush (a claim that is incorrect) and that Obama has been treated badly and nothing happened to him. Her claim is that someone called Obama a liar during a State of the Union Address and nothing happened to the guy. It was Congressman Joe Wilson and he was punished by the House leadership for his outburst.
So it is obvious that not only is this “teacher” a partisan hack she is also uninformed. One would expect a Social Studies teacher to actually know these kinds of things but it appears as if she has been reading the DNC talking points rather than actually looking at what happened.
Her outburst and the way she talked to the students, students who were more informed than she, make it obvious that she does not believe it is her job to teach. She sees it as her job to indoctrinate.
She is a Socialism Studies teacher.
I am glad I am not a student today. I would eat this woman’s lunch.
The school indicated she will not be disciplined and her name was not released by the school. This is typical of the system where indoctrination and protecting teachers is the name of the game. Fortunately, she could not hide. This teacher does not believe in open, honest debate and she should be removed from the classroom.
The student in question had this recorded because he wanted to prove to his parents that she was pushing an agenda, something about which he had complained to them. They have now moved him to another school.
That is the shame of it. The student should have stayed and the teacher should have been removed…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: bully, dear leader, lies, north carolina, Obama, romney, socialism, tanya dixon-neely
Likely vs. Registered Voters
Apr 5, 2012 Political
We are overwhelmed with polls about everything and right now in time the polls all deal with the 2012 election. Many polls show Barack Obama beating Mitt Romney (the presumptive nominee) by a few points and this is causing despair among those who want Obama defeated.
Dick Morris reviews the substance of these polls in his latest video.
Morris points out that the polls showing Obama winning are polls of registered voters which Morris says are cheaper to conduct.
He claims the real polls that matter are among likely voters and those polls show Romney and Obama neck in neck.
But Morris goes further to point out that he has analyzed polls going back to 1964 and the results show that the challenger (facing an incumbent president) gets the undecided voters.
His claim is that about 80% of the undecided go for the challenger and this means Romney is actually up by about four points. Morris points out that if people are undecided about you after you have had most of a term in office it does not bode well.
He likens it to asking your spouse “will you be married to the same person next year” and getting the answer, I’m undecided. He says that would not be good.
In any event, the polls are not necessarily what they appear to be at first glance.
The reality though, is that the only poll that matters is the one on Election Day so make sure to get out and vote.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: election day, likely voter, Obama, polls, registered voter, romney
Is It Part Of The Romney Pattern?
Sep 23, 2011 Political
During last night’s debate Governor Perry attacked former Masachusetts Governor Romney for a change in his position on Massachusetts’ health care as it would apply to the nation. Perry pointed out that a line was changed when Romney’s book was published in paperback.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry said during the Florida debate that Romney took out the single line that suggested the Massachusetts health reform law could be applied to the country. The line that is removed in the paperback version reads, “We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country.”
Romney denied there was a change but after the debate one of his people noted that there was a change and indicated that this was a common practice when books are printed in paperback and new information is available.
The problem is that the new information available, Obamacare, did not necessitate the change in the book except that Obamacare is widely disliked and Romney wants to be president.
If this were the only thing that Romney had changed one could argue that he had time to evaluate what took place in Massachusetts and what took place in the country and came to a different conclusion. The problem is, Romney has a history of changing positions. It appears as if Romney will change his positions depending on political winds.
There is no doubt that Romney has the economic and business experience but he has changed positions on abortion and the Second Amendment, to name a few, and those changes smack of political expediency.
Will a president Romney change positions or compromise his principles should he be faced with a Congress in control of the other party? We already have a guy occupying the White House who was one thing during the campaign and is totally different now that he is in office and he, of course, is not the only one. We need leadership that is principled and a leader who will not change positions on core values and beliefs for political expediency.
Make no mistake about it, Romney would be a better leader than Obama as would anyone who was on the stage last night. But we do not need someone who is, at best, better than Obama. We need a principled leader who will follow his beliefs and do what he said he would do.
All candidates from all parties have their faults. They are human beings and there are problems with all of them (though Obama supporters think differently of their messiah) but a problem with consistency is an issue that deserves a closer look.
Source:
WLS 890
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: abortion, flip flops, health care, lies, obamacare, romney, Second Amendment
It Must Be Getting Close To Campaign Time
May 14, 2011 Political
Whenever the elections roll around we are sure to be inundated by politicians telling us all the wonderful things they will do. When they get into office they change their minds and then when they run again, magically, they run on what they promised in the first place. Tragically, the population at large is not able to grasp this and continues to vote the same people back into office.
Mitt Romney instituted Obamacare in Massachusetts. He can argue that he went for something different and it was changed or that the states are test centers (they are) and this was a test that did not work but the reality is, Romney instituted a Socialist program that he is now trying to bash Obama for instituting nationwide. Obama, for his part, has thanked Romney for leading the way on this and, should Romney be the nominee, he will get beat to death with this issue. One thing he can be certain of, the liberals who support and want Obamacare will not vote for him even if he did invent it. They are wedded to their masters on the left.
Obama is doing much the same thing. He promised immigration reform in his first term and he did not get it done even though he had majorities in the House and Senate that would not have required ONE Republican vote. Yet, Obama is out bashing Republicans on this issue and talking about getting it done. He had the golden chance in the first two years. Whether he is reelected or not he will not have majorities like he enjoyed in those two years. Hispanics are being used for political reasons and many will still vote Democrat.
Obama is also a study in ever changing positions with regard to oil production here in the US. When he was running and gas prices were high he supported going after our own oil but that rapidly changed after he won and got even worse after the Gulf oil disaster. Obama put in place a moratorium and then ignored the judge who ruled against it by basically slowing the permit process. The claim has been made that oil exploration is up from a few years ago but what is not told is that the exploration is being done under permits approved under the Bush administration.
Here we are about 18 months from the next presidential election and Obama is now in favor of drilling for our own oil once again. He wants to look for oil around Alaska, part of the Gulf, and along the Atlantic Coast. Is this a phony move designed to gain support for him in the next election? His base will vote for him even if they are not happy with increased exploration but he needs to convince independent voters he is serious so talking about it early and often might get their support.
However, these things take time and if he wins again his history suggests he will put a screeching halt to any exploration.
One thing that is also overlooked is the liberals and their statements that finding and using our own oil will not make a difference in gas prices. Obama’s new found (or again found) support for drilling would seem to negate those arguments and the arguments that we do not need to go after our own oil because of the wonderful green technology out there. Technology that has yet to prove it can lower costs.
Remember, Obama also said he would half the yearly deficit by the end of his first term. He has more than doubled that deficit and there is no way he will half what it is now (and certainly not what it was). Look for him to move the goal posts on this issue as well by claiming that things were worse than he realized and he will have to work on it in a second term. The question is, does he realize how bad it is now? Why think he does when he did not when he made his bold claim of cutting the deficit in half?
People need to take notice of what he said he would do and what he has actually done.
Like Romney, he can claim one thing but his record is quite clear in a totally different direction.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: deficit, energy, Obama, obamacare, oil, romney, romneycare