Search This Blog

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Taxes Again

I've talked a lot about taxes in the history of this blog. What seems counter-intuitive really isn't, with spending cuts raising revenue.

Here Tom Bethell at the American Spectator explains it another way:
Here’s my one-paragraph sermon on budget basics. Taxrates are prices. Taxes are quantities. Yet they are frequently conflated, as in the phrases “tax cut” and “tax increase.” When tax rates are increased, what happens to revenues? The Congressional Budget Office assumes that they go up by the same proportion. But they don’t. Imagine you are running a money-losing department store, and everyone gives you the same advice: “Raise prices on your luxury goods!” So you do, and the rich shoppers go somewhere else. Now you are worse off. Prices higher, revenues lower. You have learned a lesson. When it comes to prices (or taxes), the rich can move, or move their money, or both.
 Makes sense, right? He goes on:
Unfortunately, confused readers generally work to the advantage of liberals, whose permanent goal is to expand the power of government. As a rule, reporters draw attention to national budget problems only to persuade us that “more taxes” are needed. They mean more revenues, and they assume higher tax rates will produce them.
Spending cuts are equally misreported. Assume that $100 is being spent on some government program (think of it as $100 billion if you want to be more realistic). Now a “5 percent budget cut” is promised—but it’s not what you might imagine. Capitol Hill has 10-year budget projections already built in. So Congress has scheduled, let’s say, $110 (billion) for the same programnext year (a 10 percent increase). Under a 5 percent cut, only $105 will be allocated to the program instead of the projected $110.
So in the end, spending has gone up from $100 to $105 and that’s a 5 percent cut. So it goes. Reporters who write these stories never tell you that a budget “cut” is almost always an increase that has been slightly reduced from an earlier “baseline.” In the end, only the budget wonks understand what’s going on.

The best part: Paul Ryan is a budget wonk! I suspect Mitt Romney is as well, since he's a businessman. You can read more of the article yourself. Don't forget: Come January 1, 2013, we all see unprecedented tax increases coming from a confluence of expirations of cuts and new taxes: Taxmaggedon. Obama isn't talking about it because naturally, he'd rather have votes than inform voters.

Monday, October 29, 2012

Storm Warning

Without giving away where I live, we are threatened by this enormous storm and I will postpone further posts until it's passed on or fizzled out. Hopefully we won't end up with power outages...

Sunday, October 28, 2012

The Homeless

I am too young to remember this. Apparently, not until Ronald Reagan's presidency were the homeless focused on in American media and politicized shamelessly. They promptly disappeared from the headlines as soon as Bill Clinton was elected, similar to how the Iraq war and the total federal deficit were erased from media consciousness as soon as Obama was elected.

The homeless number twice as many as in Reagan's time.

I am certain the homeless will once again enter our public (media) talking points as soon as Romney resides in the White House and not a minute earlier - along with anything else that could damage the man in public opinion. After all, he's a Republican. Not a Democrat.

Democrats can rack up $5.5T in debt and lose millions of American jobs with barely a peep. Democrats can lie about policy failures and the deaths of American citizens and get away with it - without impeachment. Too many Americans still don't know about Fast and Furious, though the details of Benghazi slowly but surely are infiltrating our leftist media, as conservative media coverage forces them to admit the truth.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Obama's history: A summary

If you haven't noticed or thought to ask previously, consider how much (or how little) you know of Obama's past compared with any other president in recent memory. In other words, consider how little vetted Obama was as a presidential candidate in 2008. Only recently has it come out that he was into drugs. Do you know how well he did in school? Do you know who his friends are? Do you know particulars of what he did for a living? Do you know his past and present political philosphies? did some digging and found out many things the liberal news media were not interested in asking or reporting in the 2008 election, and reported it as part of "The Vetting" series.  You may find a summary of them here. Basically, everything Obama's done is straight out of radical Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals."

Obama is more radical than people generally expected. Hindsight is 20/20, but in this case a little decent investigative reporting might have preserved our country from additional trillions in the deficit, declining GDP because of anti-government policies particularly after recovering from a recession, Obamacare and its trillions in expenses, a partisan and divisive president, an anti-American foreign policy, billions if not trillions of dollars spent on crony-capitalism, and the addition of millions of Americans to welfare. If you want more of the same, you go ahead and vote for Obama again. I'm guessing that most Americans don't want to stay on this road we've been traveling, and will vote for Mitt Romney to turn around the economy, make our entitlement programs sustainable for the future, lower the unemployment rate by adding jobs instead of having people drop out of the labor force, improve our position abroad, and unify our country instead of pit Americans against each other.

Friday, October 26, 2012

Obama is Quiet about 2013 Tax Increases

Do you remember when I wrote about the unprecedented level of tax increases set to take effect Jan 1st, 2013? It's finally been picked up in the news media, but without most of the details such as the fact that every single American can expect higher taxes or lower returns. Yup. It's coming. Obama isn't shouting this to the skies for obvious reasons, but he did admit as much in what he thought was an off-record interview, and was later forced to authorize the release of his interview transcript with the DesMoines Register for political reasons - meaning, he can't go looking like he's trying to hide information from the American public, even though that's been the story of his entire presidency.

Also, the Tea Party made a movie about Obamacare and all its flaws, costs, and consequences. You can watch it here: Obamacare is responsible for several million more dollars in tax increases on Americans across the board in 2013, not just the "wealthy."

*UPDATE. Obama is also quiet about the details of Benghazi. A source has revealed much of what the government refuses to tell, and if it is true, then it is easy to understand why the government refuses to answer our questions. Naturally, the news media is protecting Obama and not following these leads responsibly.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Democrats and Racism

As you may well have heard by now, Ann Coulter has a new book, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama. She lays bare all the formerly common historical facts about the Democrats and racism, which have now been hidden - rewritten by liberal historians to blame the racism all on the right. Which it isn't, and never has been, as she's often said explained in her column as well as many other conservative sources.

From the middle this week's column:
It's hard to evaluate Matthews' slander inasmuch as it contains no facts. But if it's conservatives and "the white working class in the South" who are burning with racial hatred, why don't white liberals ever vote for black representatives in their own congressional districts?

Black Democrats apparently can get elected to Congress only from majority black districts, whereas black Republicans are always elected from majority white districts: Gary Franks, J.C. Watts, Tim Scott, Allen West and (we hope!) Mia Love.

How come white liberals won't vote for a black representative? Why can't a black person represent Nita Lowey's district?

Democrats do nothing for black Americans except mine them for votes, ginning them up with tall tales about racist Republicans. This week, a guest on MSNBC said that Republicans' idea of foreign policy is to go to war with "one of those brown countries over there."

This is in contradistinction to Obama, who simply wants to impoverish the brown people over here. Have you seen the black unemployment rates lately? (They're hard to notice, since the NFM keeps them hidden in that vast warehouse with the Ark of the Covenant.)

The august New York Times recently explained that illegal immigration has no effect on unemployment because illegal immigrants compete only with "native-born workers without a high school diploma."

As noted by Vanderbilt law professor Carol Swain, author of "Debate Immigration," that means black workers. Illegal immigration, she says, harms blacks "the most because they're disproportionately low-skilled."
Yup. Democrats don't do much for blacks. As I've discussed before by highlighting an article researched and published at the National Review Online.  Note that the liberal media wants no part in reporting what is obviously hurtful to Obama's reelection. They're the ones siding with the Democrats in keeping blacks on the "plantation," as Herman Cain would call it. Keeping them in the dark. Keeping them from knowing the results on their communities of liberal policies designed to "help" them, though in reality they only help Democrat politicians retain their votes.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Brian Terry

Remember when an ex-convict took 40% of the Democratic Primary vote away from Obama in West Virginia? This man is fascinating! I found (thanks to Drudge) a detailed article all about Randall Terry at the Weekly Standard, written by Matt Labash who spent a week with him. It turns out he's a "convict" in the sense that he's spent time in jail for protesting abortions. That's what he does for a living! He protests killing babies. His is a most interesting story and I highly enjoyed learning more about the man, and I appreciate his passion for protecting little people who cannot speak up for themselves. By the way, he advocates for adoption when the birth mother/parents can't care for the child themselves. There is a huge need for adoptive children in this country since the demand exceeds the supply and has ever since Roe vs. Wade, if not before. The world needs more people like Randall Terry. In some ways, he reminds me of Andrew Breitbart. Different passion, but equal in intensity and similar in style.

His entire mission at present is to take away votes from Obama by exposing his abortion record and other human rights issues. He's buying air time (as a candidate this is allowed) just for this purpose. He's the guy behind the anti-abortion protests outside clinics back in the '90s. He's the guy who delivers aborted fetuses to politician's desks in Washington. He's a guy who has few political friends: the pro-lifers hate him because he justly accuses them of being ineffective, and the pro-choicers hate him for obvious reasons. His assistants are often people who became pro-life after being wracked with guilt following an abortion of their own. Or baby-killing, as Randall Terry prefers to call it, which is what it really is.

I think what most interests me about him is that, though he is Democrat, he is violently opposed to Barack Obama and will do everything he possibly can to undermine Obama support. This is because, among other things, Obama voted as a state senator in Illinois for doctors to kill babies resulting from "botched abortions." Babies born alive, then murdered. That's Obama's record.

It's obvious why the news media has been paying as little attention to this man as possible. It's all too obvious they're trying to stir up anti-pro-life sentiment today, in fact, rather than cover real news like Obama knew about the extremists behind Libya from 2 hours after the attack. No, instead most of the media is engaged in Republican bashing and will continue to do so until Election Day. And afterwards to a lesser degree. Don't expect to see any reference to Randall Terry from the media, whether his ads against Obama dent his support or not.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Third Debate

First of all, if you haven't already watched the debate, a video of it, or read the transcript, you need to do that first. Why? Because all you'll find written or said about it is spin. Spin, spin, spin. I'll give you my own honest opinion about it, but please watch the debate yourself to make your own opinion without having one handed to you by any post-debate "analysis."

First of all, I was impressed with the moderation. It was by far the most fair of the debates, though I have not yet seen reports about total minutes given to each candidate, etc. Many of the questions seemed equally difficult for both men.

I was disappointed that Romney couldn't pummel Obama in this debate given Obama's horrible record, but Obama didn't allow himself to be pummeled because of his attitude, not that he explained his failures as failures. Either he's delusional or deliberately misleading Americans as to the results of his foreign policy, but either way Romney raised some good questions for Americans to reflect on our position abroad, and explained many situations abroad with clarity and a depth of understanding.

This debate didn't change anything, and I doubt it will create a new surge of support for either one. Both men were strong. I doubt this will give Obama any momentum going into the election, but then again his complicit media friends will have our ears instead of the candidates themselves for the next two weeks. Overall Romney was much more polite than Obama. Overall Obama was not as serious when talking about serious foreign policy issues as Romney. Obama also interrupted Romney repeatedly, thanked no one, and came across patronizing and arrogant more than once. Obama wasn't near as obnoxious as Biden was on these topics, but he was irritating enough.

Both men showed a good understanding of foreign policy in general - especially Romney, who has more to prove as the challenger. Too bad Obama's rhetoric doesn't match up with his record! Romney would bring up some of the issues in Obama's record and Obama gave a weak defense to most of them if he responded to specifics at all, stronger or off-topic defenses for others. Obama would attack Romney for shifting positions on foreign policy which Romney explained as Obama not understand the heart of Romney's positions, meaning the principle stays the same even if the action he would prefer changes over time - much as the situations abroad change and demand different actions over time. Romney also said, twice, that Obama attacking him is not a foreign policy. I think that will resonate with Americans that Obama dodged repeatedly.

The topic frequently meandered to the economy here at home, since it does relate directly to how we're seen abroad. Romney made the same points about Americans projecting weakness because of our escalating deficit, high unemployment, and lower take home pay. Obama made the same points he always does about Romney's math not working out even though it does. As Romney says himself, he's made a living out of balancing budgets and Obama's never balanced a budget! I do wish Romney had explained this the way he did in the first debate when he said that the reason revenue increases with lower tax rates is more jobs are created creating more tax payers and also have higher incomes with with to generate more revenue. Works every time!

In conclusion, Romney opened strong. Obama finished strong. Romney didn't get less strong, Obama just got more sure of himself about half way through. It was really boring for me by the end.

I have not yet looked at any debate analysis or spin or fact-checking, first wanting to get out my own unbiased opinion on the debate. I'll still look at some analysis, because I know there are points I have missed that I should consider. Consider doing the same, but not until after you've watched it for yourself! And as always, I remind you to look at both sides, because they point out completely different yet valid things about these debates. As with any other topic.

Monday, October 22, 2012

What Does Mitt Romney Do When Nobody's Looking?

I found a clip from CBS here, with this general subject. Oh my gosh, these liberal commentators make me want to vomit! They ask questions like why is it that people don't know Mitt Romney is always helping other people wherever he is? Why haven't we heard those stories? Why is it that Mitt Romney hasn't successfully formed a narrative about why his success and wealth are an advantage (he has already, but the media doesn't cover it)? Why is it that Mitt Romney's coverage has not revealed his real character? Why is it that Americans haven't realized how genuine, smart, and caring Mitt Romney is?



The media has ignored and pushed away stories like these consistently and repeatedly. I've searched for these kinds of character-revealing accounts of Romney over the past year and a half or so, and I have found plenty of evidence that Mitt Romney is really a terrific person. Kind, helpful, humble, honest, hardworking, funny. These stories have been around, but the media never picked up on them because that would hurt Obama. IT IS THE MEDIA THAT SUPPRESSED THESE STORIES.


I'm trying to control myself here. It's just when I hear the media all of the sudden asking why these stories haven't been front and center all along when they're the culprits, it's more than I can take.

This is why Mitt Romney successfully shows his character, in person, at the GOP convention and the debates. I'm sure he also does so at campaign stops. The media would spin his messages against him otherwise. The media sure has picked up on plenty of Obama-friendly false narratives of Romney by taking his words ricidulously out of context (such as the 47% and Big Bird and just about everything they can think of) and also created a false Romney. They de-humanized him.

They are to blame. Watch them try to spin everything for Obama tonight after the last debate. Watch them give Romney less time than Obama like they have in the past two debates. Watch them cut off Romney more than Obama. Watch them throw the victory to Obama again even though polls after the second one clearly showed Romney as the winner in all areas. Watch Obama lie through his teeth. Don't forget that all the fact-checking after the second debate showed Obama a liar, not Romney.

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Foreign Policy Debate Prep

The average American doesn't have a terrific understanding of foreign policy. The news media does absolutely nothing to help them, talking positively only about Democrats' foreign policy and negatively about Republicans' foreign policy. They do not talk about many of the results of their policies, because that would be to admit the obvious: that Republicans have a better record at keeping America safe and strong.

We now prepare to listen to the third and final presidential debate, and also prepare to vote. At least, I hope we prepare. If we do not listen to this debate having a decent understanding about the state of foreign affairs in the world, how can we recognize the lies and the spins? How can we recognize which man is better for the job of president of the United States? This does mean you need to listen to both sides, because (as I'm sure you've gathered by now) balanced coverage simply doesn't exist in one place and both sides leave stuff out. You can go read about Mitt's "laughable" foreign policy on the left, though they give little to no details or either his or Obama's policies, and then you can go read about Obama's actual foreign policy failures at Breitbart. Laughing at Romney is all the ammo the liberals have left to them. is currently devoted to foreign policy at an unprecedented level according to my memory. Why? To help Americans understand the dangerous foreign policy mistakes in the Obama administration. They are obvious and deliberate. They are reckless. They are unreported by the aiders and abetters all over news media, as I talked about in yesterday's post. If you read nothing else at Breitbart, this article is a must-read to get the basics of what news media and the Obama administration don't want Americans to understand about Obama's policy in the Middle East.

I grant you there is plenty more to understand about foreign policy. I feel that Americans already have a better grasp about just exactly what kind of threat China represents to us, thanks to Mitt Romney's explanations in the first two debates. The Middle East has as yet been largely untouched, with Obama avoiding the topics of Libya and Iran like the plague and his friendly liberal moderators understanding his indefensible positions to the point of not questioning him about them. With the principle focus on foreign policy on Monday, I have dim hopes that the moderator will be a bit tougher on Obama.

I expect to hear more also about free trade agreements from both men on Monday night. Romney may bring up Fast and Furious again but Obama will dodge again. Perhaps we'll hear about Russia. Romney has a good understanding of Russian aggression - I was very impressed with his explanations in his book "No Apologies," because they made sense. The liberal media never makes sense. It's like common sense is a foreign language to them! Romney's book is another great resource to understanding something more about foreign policy ahead of the debate and Election Day.

Friday, October 19, 2012

News Media: Aided and Abetted in Murder Coverup

The news media has done its very best to keep Fast and Furious and the Benghazi attacks out of the limelight because both of them are obvious failures for the Obama administration, which they avidly support despite their standard promises of fair and balanced coverage.

In Fast and Furious, despite conservative media's best attempts (and now Univision) to force the news media's hand, Americans continue to be in the dark. Even though Mexicans and at least one American border control agent have died as a result of this ill-conceived plan. Even though a complete and thorough report should be considered part of accurate reporting. Instead, they side with the Obama administration and cover it up, even today.

Did you notice how when Romney brought it up at the second presidential debate, Obama completely ignored it and made no attempt to defend his record? In his mind, the less Americans know about Fast and Furious, the better. After all, if they knew that he set up a program to walk guns across the border without agents tracking them and stopping Mexican drug warriors before crimes were committed with them, what other choice would Americans have than to believe other than that if Obama is not incredibly stupid, then he wanted people to be killed so he could push for stricter gun laws? Only a border agent died and too many people started asking questions so he didn't get that far. And no, this program did NOT exist under Bush.

Then the media did it again. Libya's riots were blamed on a movie despite the fact that Al Qaida claimed involvement in the first 24 hours, despite the Libyan president insisting this attack was organized by terrorists. Conservative media reported it as such. Conservative media spent a lot of time reporting the details of the Libya attack which results in the deaths of four Americans, but the news media continued their staunch pro-Obama narrative that free speech is bad because a movie fictiously caused a riot, and Obama arrested the filmmaker.

Whatever he said, they said. Didn't matter which news channel you turned to, you heard exactly the same things. Now, the second presidential debate in tandem with conservative media alerting Americans to the fact that their president has been lying to them has produced a new turn of events: Obama trying to spin his way through Libya, with the news media spinning right alongside as usual. Most recently this has him saying the situation is "not optimal." Ben Shapiro of Breitbart says
The left is already saying that the “not optimal” quote has been taken out of context; they were saying that Stewart used the word “optimal” first. The problem: it’s far worse in context. Stewart said that the White House response was “not the optimal response.” Obama responded not by tackling the White House response, but by calling the murders “not optimal.”
The lies and spinning continue on. What many Americans still do not know (thanks to the DNC-News media affiliation) is that the Arab Spring never had a chance at becoming a big democratic movement in the Middle East and other predominantly Islamic countries. For more on that, see Ann Coulter's article explaining why that is so.

Yesterday, I framed the current state of news media- DNC affairs in my head in the bigger picture, and concluded the inevitable. Without the coverup going on for Obama during the past four years (or 8 years of Clinton, for that matter), Americans would have realized Obama is a bad president leading to
  1. His favoribility and overall performance ratings as president being lower all along
  2. He would have modified his policies enough to be more in line with Americans to stand a chance at reelection since he obviously either doesn't know or doesn't care about restarting the economy, or
  3. He would have realized Americans don't want a president like him and he stands no chance of reelection.
  4. If the media did real investigative reporting some of these issues would have been resolved before Americans died and America's place in the world economically and in foreign policy would not have dropped as much as they have with war in Iran now more likely than ever.
Any way I look at this, I can only conclude that the media is just as dangerous to America as Obama's policies if not more so, as Andrew Breitbart realized long ago. The media will still be here (I presume) after Obama is long gone, but their liberal slant will never disappear. They will continue to drive public opinion towards Democrats (i.e. Clinton, Bill) and against Republicans (i.e. Bush, George W.). No matter their respective records. For more on that, see yesterday's post.

Romney well knows the media's bias. He's playing his game accordingly. He used the GOP convention and the three debates (including Ryan's) thus far to show Americans who he really is since the media will never, ever represent him accurately. Here are some of my favorite jokes of his from the charity dinner last night as published at I never suggest that the -- that the press is biased. I recognize that they have their job to do, and I have my job to do. My job is to lay out a positive vision for the future of the country, and their job is to make sure no one else finds out about it.

Let's just say that some in the media have a certain way of -- of looking at things. When suddenly I -- I pulled ahead in some of the major polls, what was the headline? "Polls Show Obama Leading from Behind."

And I've already seen early reports from tonight's dinner, headline; "Obama Embraced by Catholics. Romney Dines with Rich People."
As funny as they seem and as lightheartedly as these jokes were given, Romney is deadly serious. He knows as well as the rest of us conservatives that he will never be given fair treatment in the press. Ever. I see some promise that he'll dare combat the anti-GOP bias in the press as president, which George W. Bush never wanted to do because he thought it not presidential. Considering the obvious dangers of allowing a press to run wild with the facts, as outlined in this post, I think it a matter of national security to make sure the record is straight and American really know what is going on in their country! I dare you to find these particular jokes quoted in even one of the standard news media write-ups of the event.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Jobs Reports

It is a well-understood phenomenon in the world of conservative media that a bad jobs report is horrible for a Republican in office, but just a setback for a Democrat. Temporary. Unexpected. The opposite happens with a better jobs report. The Republican gets the "about the same" treatment while the Democrat gets "Good, better, big gains" and the like. For the same numbers or even worse numbers and percentages than the Republican.

Last week, the media hyped up an incomplete jobs report, making the situation look better than it really was (for Obama, not for Americans out of work). This week they're barely mentioning a truly horrific jobs report. Why? Because Obama is a Democrat.

Bush would have had the opposite treatment. Remember how Americans couldn't escape the incessant harping on George W. Bush? The minute Obama took office, the federal deficit and unemployment rate left the front page, even though Obama's numbers have relentlessly and steadily gotten worse. Bush is hated today because of news media. Not because of his actual record, which remains largely unknown thanks to the same news media.

Meanwhile, the news media protects Obama despite worse performance in all areas. Leaving Americans similarly in the dark about Obama's real record.

Luckily for Americans, the Romney/Obama debates are informing them of Obama's many failures in office, since the media doesn't do its job of reporting real news. Even though they do their best to keep Americans from the truth even now by ignoring anti-Obama news and making up anti-Romney news instead of reporting details of either campaign and their respective plans for America (must be bad for Obama and Romney's must be going too well!) and by giving the Democrat the last word in debates and interrupting the Republican twice as much or more than the Democrat. Those moderators are all liberal media people, don't forget.

And why, or how, are the American people now realizing that Obama has failed them, along with news media? Romney's clueing them in and Obama's refusing to defend his record. Because he can't.

In conclusion, the media isn't a trustworthy source of information. They're so biased they're not reporting noteworthy good things about Republicans and holding back noteworthy bad things about Democrats. To counterbalance this incomplete information, you must read both sides. Simple solution.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Second Debate

Here are my reactions to it, unbiased by any pundit because I haven't yet watched or listened to or read any "analysis." I recommend you do the same: watch the debate video yourself before even reading my impressions, let alone those in the media! Don't be sheep, led by the pundits. Make your own opinion.

Romney and Obama both did well. That means the liberal media will say Obama won. I think it's more complicated than that. Romney, as usual, took the time to rebut any argument against him or his record while still punching at Obama's dismal record. Obama, however, didn't bother to defend his record where it couldn't be defended. He made no mention of his record with the deficit, spending, or Fast and Furious. He made no mention of why he didn't do so many things he had promised in his 2008 campaign. Some of his other rebuttals didn't make much sense or match up with his record, like on immigration. Sometimes he dodged questions altogether, while Romney did a better job of generally staying on point.

Romney was smart, in the closing question, to bring up that he cares about 100% of Americans, but Obama had the last word and didn't even bother to answer the question, instead focusing on the completely out-of-context 47% remark of Romney's. This is the only time he could have brought this up. He knows as well as Romney that Romney can completely defend that statement by putting the context back into it!

Romney also did a great job on the economy and beat Obama squarely whenever that was the topic, which was most of the time. When the economy was not the topic, Obama usually won, with the help of the moderator. Libya Romney should not have lost, but I think he did because of the way he phrased his comment and the way the president combined with the moderator went after him.

Obama kept coming back to education being the answer to all America's problems again, not understanding (apparently) that teacher jobs are public jobs and not part of the employment solution in this country. You see, teachers are paid through taxpayer money. That means there has to be taxpayer money - taken from the private sector - to pay them, and every other government worker. The big problem with Obama's administration has been the stifling of the private sector, including "lowering" the unemployment by millions of people leaving the labor force entirely. Romney/Ryan is right: that is not what a real recovery looks like. Obama sent a lot of mixed messages last night, meaning that his rhetoric doesn't match up with his actions. At all.

The audience (in Long Island) was obviously more friendly overall to Obama given what they laughed at during the debate. That said, the moderator did a pretty good job of selecting questions from people who had real questions for both Obama and Romney.

Obama's demeanor was lightyears away from the first debate. I don't know if it was because of a friendly crowd with which to guage himself, but whatever the reason he acted how people remember him in 2008. EXCEPT that he dodges questions on his record now. Has no answer, most of the time. Ignores those questions completely. Tries to make it about Romney instead of about his record or lack thereof. The moderator didn't really call him out on that, though she gave Romney much less wiggle room in his answers - not that he was off topic as much as Obama.

In the beginning, I'd say both men seemed even. In the middle, Romney was ahead overall because the topics heavily focused on the economy. In the end, Obama left with the last word which he turned into an anti-Romney attack more than a vision of what Obama can do for America - which was completely defensible by Romney. In that sense, that attack is the only one that Romney did not send packing and Obama was left the winner. But those are cheap tactics.

In conclusion, Romney won on substance. Obama won on style. A dirty style, but a style nonetheless. His fans oughtta be pretty happy with him now. It will be interesting to see if this debate makes a net difference in the polls heading into the third debate. I suspect it won't make a huge difference, because both men did well and if Americans are paying attention to substance they'll still prefer Romney.

As they prepare for the third debate, which should cover foreign policy in more depth, Romney has a big chance to double down on Obama's failures in that area. The one or two questions relating to foreign policy last night didn't really hit Obama hard in the end. Romney should improve on that for the third debate.

I was somewhat surprised that Romney didn't hit at the media bias directly. He had several opportunities, but phrased it as questions about why it took so long for people to hear about certain events in Obama's presidency, and blamed the Obama campaign for people getting a false idea of his character, even though the blame lies just as heavily with American media. He's going to have to hit more directly to make significant gains, I'm guessing.

Now I'll read what other people have to say, not to be led but to point out to me some things I may have missed otherwise.

*** I forgot to say that Obama lied through his teeth like his life depended on it! The average American wouldn't know. I, however, read both sides. So I knew he was lying. I wanted to slap him out of it! Click here for the most egregious ones.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Voting Rights

If you don't regularly visit conservative media sites, no doubt you are unaware that a) states are required to send out military ballots by a certain date according to federal law but b) there is very little the federal government can do about enforcement. Very little. If they do anything at all. Historically, blue states deprive military personnel their right to vote by not sending them their ballots in time for them to be returned by the cutoff day. Cheap! Low blow! If anyone should be guaranteed a right to vote in this country, it should be those who defend her and protect her.

This year, true to form, at least four states failed to meet the deadline: Vermont, Michigan, Mississippi and Wisconsin. I was surprised to see Illinois missing from this list because they sure belonged on it back in 2008, along with New York. This year, the Romney campaign has filed a lawsuit in behalf of military voters in Wisconsin, asking they be granted an extension.

The only Congressmen who seem to care that military people are being deprived their Constitutional right to vote are the Republicans. Yes, the military usually votes Republican. But this issue is deeper than that. Do Congressional Democrats care so little about the nearly-sacred right to vote in this country? Meanwhile, many Democrats have been caught voting twice - a felony. They've joked about "finding" votes for themselves after the election - as they sure have experience doing in past elections in Minnesota, for example. Or Wisconsin, when they bussed in a bunch of people from Michigan to vote for the Recall election - yielding 119% voter turnout in Madison. There are so many other examples. The Obama campaign sued to restrict military voting and has sought its restriction in Ohio. No, Democrats don't care about the Constitution. Only themselves and their power.

Well, their time is up. The liberal media has become so blatantly biased that people are turning away and seeking more information elsewhere. This couldn't be better for America. If more people distrust the liberal machine that is the DNC and news media corporations, the more likely they'll understand that Republicans are right when they say we can't afford to continue spending the way we have been. And that Romney/Ryan aren't who the media say they are. And that Obama isn't who the media says he is either - they fail to report his failures.

As a reminder, if you can't watch the debate tonight, do yourself the favor of watching it before listening to any spinning of the debate. Make your own opinion, free from any one else. Transcripts are no longer reliable - substantive statements were omitted from both Romney and Ryan in their respective debates. Don't trust the media for anything other than reliable bias and misrepresentation of every single topic they cover. Not for fair and balanced coverage. For that, you must read both sides. Also be prepared for another two on one debate like we "enjoyed" last week.

Monday, October 15, 2012

Second Presidential Debate Tomorrow

As much as the pundits are talking about how Obama is going to have to be more agressive against Romney to get momentum back on his side, I don't think that's possible. He had no answer prior and has no answer now to problems in his record. Problems that the media has ignored for Obama's benefit. In the first debate, he didn't even answer a lot of criticism, no doubt because he can't defend his record and doesn't want to bring any more attention to it by trying. In this sense, there is no way he can win any debate. He says one thing, but does another. He failed the American people. And they know it.

The other aspect that hurts Obama in a debate is that people watching the debate see Romney as he really is and not as Obama and the liberal media say he is. People like Romney. They're impressed with Romney. Seeing Romney in person is necessarily a bad thing for Obama during debates because the comparison between the Romney the liberals created and the real Romney is stark. And unnecessary - they didn't have to go lie about him, but they did! They show their true colors, hurting liberals in an election year once again.

Go Romney!

Sunday, October 14, 2012


I'm dreaming of the day that
  • My home value rises.
  • Gas is back under $2/gallon and America achieves a perfectly feasible energy independence.
  • Food and other products stop increasing in price.
  • The economy grows at a modest 4% or even more rubust 6% instead of the tepid one point something percent we've got now.
  • The TSA doesn't give Americans grief.
  • America's deficit is under control or at least stagnated, not this $1T additional annual deficit thing we've got now.
  • The American people do research and vote for candidates committed to fiscal responsibility in Washington, then vote them out if they break their promises to their constituents.
  • The growth of government doesn't exceed the growth of the private sector paying for it as we've experienced recently.
  • Taxes go down to create a more business-friendly, job-creating environment in the United States.
  • Taxes go down so federal revenue goes up again. As always happens.
  • States get their budgets and spending under control too.
  • People move out of poverty upward by their own efforts and a government more committed to training programs than permanent hand-out programs.
  • Our entitlement programs are reorganized to make them sustainable for the future without chaining our descendants by limiting their economic freedom.
  • The American Dream lives again.
Dream on, dream on. Yet hope springs eternal. Go Romney!

Saturday, October 13, 2012

Have you noticed?

The post-VP debate media coverage is still overly kind to Biden and Obama, but they're easing up a bit on Romney and Ryan. Have you noticed? I've seen and heard more positive coverage for the GOP ticket in the last few days than I had in the last few months together!


My guess is now that some swing states are solid for Romney and a few blue or purple states are leaning Romney, the media is scrambling to make themselves relevant. They're so out of touch with America, they didn't even know until now that Romney could be a real threat to Obama. I think they blame the losses in the media-favored polls (skewed unrealistically Democrat) on Obama's debate performance, even though the movement towards Romney really started a little earlier according to more reputable polls like Rasmussen.

A lot of conservative sites have been pointing out the obvious disdain of fly-over country in media treatment (and Democrat treatment, same thing). They seem not to care that middle America is suffering. At all. That was further illuminated by Biden's attitude in the VP debate. Juxtaposed by Wall Street having record gains thanks to the Feds, and it's clear that Obama/Biden care more about their bank accounts than the people of American. QE1, 2, and now 3 are all responsible for gains on Wall Street but higher living costs for the rest of us.

This movement towards Romney lasting more than a couple days spells trouble for Obama, to be sure. The media hates to be on the wrong side of history. This also tells me that the media doesn't think Obama can redeem himself in the next two debates.

Friday, October 12, 2012

VP Debate

I am being careful to give you my thoughts and impressions without having listened to any post-debate media spin and analysis. I advise you to watch it yourself if you missed it for the same reason - to make your own opinion instead of taking one handed to you on a platter!

OK. Biden divided his time between being ultra-smooth a la Clinton and being super rude. REALLY rude. And the moderater did absolutely nothing about Biden. I would have turned off his mike! He kept interrupting Ryan when it was his turn, even when Ryan pointed out that the American people would be better served by listening to them talk without interrupting each other. Biden seemed mostly patronizing, whether smooth or rude. He talked down to everyone. He kept labeling Ryan's points as nonsense when they made perfect sense. It was annoying.

It made me think of what I've heard of the Clarence Thomas nomination hearings when the liberals said smoothly to him that it was just a formality, piece of cake; the actual hearing were more like being tied to the railroad tracks. Ryan was subject to treatment like that last night. Yet he is the one who both played defense and offense. Biden stuck mostly with offense only, as Obama had done. He did a little better defending Obama's record than Obama himself had but he still left a lot of things unanswered.

Ryan, for his part, kept a smile on his face a lot of the time, was respectful and soft-spoken, and didn't seem irritated by Biden. That is hard to do. I was about ready to turn off the TV I was so irritated with Biden! Biden made a point of inserting his own voice over any defense or substantive remark of Ryan's. The moderator would cut off Ryan afterwards instead of giving him a chance to finish. To her credit, she occasionally cut Biden off too and she asked questions that were not overtly liberal except for one: abortion as relates to their Catholicism. Ryan finished the evening with the last closing statement, and a very strong one. He was polite and friendly to the end.

In conclusion, the liberals are probably going to claim victory for Biden but if he won, it was because of general uncivility.  Not from defending Obama's record. We heard little from Biden that we had not heard before in the first Romney/Obama debate. The same tired old lies were repeated by Biden last night. Biden made a point of calling Ryan a liar throughout the entire debate (overdone, I think) but Ryan got the only laugh from the audience. No one joined in Biden's raucous laughter when Ryan would bring up legitimate concerns about the Obama administration.

I think conservatives can safely say that Paul Ryan held his ground and did us proud.

And now I'll see what some other people thought. This is as instructive as forming one's own opinion, because sometimes analysis from one side or the other will bring up good points that one might have missed oneself.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

The disconnect

Erick Erickson over at RedState is a journalist by trade. A token conservative for CNN, as I understand it. He understands the divide between liberal media reporting and what media consumers want: blatant bias versus fair and unbalanced reporting! He has up a lengthy but worthwhile anaylsis of the current situation in the media with The American Political Press's Psycho Moment.

There are many great ideas and comparisons in it, but I think this paragraph in the middle just about sums it up. As background, he compares the current media divide to that of the movie goer versus movie critic in the movie Psycho.
There is a vast disconnect that I don’t think most reporters understand or appreciate. Worse, I think they’d rather blame the news consumers — increasingly the former news consumers — than blame themselves or acknowledge their responsibility. There is little difference between the movie critic who comments derisively on the taste of American movie goers and the reporter who comments derisively on what the news consumer chooses to watch and read.
This really is the heart of the matter. Reporters lean so far left they are incapable of fair coverage. A little deeper, the liberal media also wants to protect liberal politicians at the expense of the consumer. Protecting Barack Obama in his Libya scandal, his Fast and Furious scandal - scandals that could bring impeachment with an antagonistic press as it surely would have been under Bush. These scandals are worse than Watergate according to Rush Limbaugh, because people died in both of Obama's big scandals and then he and the press went around covering it up. And of course Obama's wasted billions in taxpayer dollars in green energy programs that went bankrupt with little public outrage because of little coverage by a friendly media. Meanwhile we hear more about Romney's "gaffes" that are really his words taken ridiculously out of context. Not as important to Americans as the fact that our president lies to us!

Erick Erickson continues:
It is not that Fox News is, during its day time news, more conservative. It is that Fox News actually expends effort to ensure it relates to the values and world view of many more Americans than most major news outlets. But the average reporter for the average newspaper or other press shop would rather lament a conservative bias at Fox News than recognize most of them have a liberal bias much more detached from the average American. Outside of that news organization, very few are even interested in what middle class Americans within fifty miles of an American river valley not named Hudson even care about. The people consuming the news are not viewed as the intended consumers by the press. The intended consumers are those at their cocktail parties in Washington and New York who will herald them and give them Pulitzers and maybe one day a cushy job in a future Democratic Administration.

Festering the problem, many reporters, thought leaders in the press, and news executives rarely encounter people in the heartland any more. The Mississippi River Valley is something to be flown over instead of studied and covered unless there is a natural disaster. Additionally, the new breed of political reporter knows little about politics before Bush v. Gore, couldn’t care less to have a sense of history to give them perspective, embraces the cosmopolitan culture of elite environs in New York and Washington diving only into hipster dive bars to drink Pabst Blue Ribbon to connect in some superficial way with the rest of the country, leans left socially and fiscally, and maintains an increasingly secular world view nearly identical to that of their other young, hipster reporter friends. “Professing themselves wise, they became fools . . . ”

It is a painful truth.
I have a link to the liberal leanings of a full 90% of the press, at least in 2008, in yesterday's post. And as for the recent moves in the media to cover Obama a little more objectively, Erickson explains this too:
These are all conservative critiques of the Obama Administration for the past four years. But each time conservatives raised them, most political reporters dismissed the critiques as partisanship, frivolousness, or racism. Now, the political press is taking on these points as their own as are many Americans suddenly tuned in. The conservative echo chamber talking points about Barack Obama have broken out of the echo chamber and seeped into the American psyche in a way that the Obama camp will have a hard time shutting down. But the damning thing is that many of these points were, for four years, treated dismissively by the American political press only to now be repeated by them.

It is not that suddenly these points underwent a metamorphosis from illegitimate to legitimate. It’s that the political press, like with Benghazi, can no longer tell the American people they did not see what they actually saw. Americans are believing their lying eyes and, in so doing, more and more feel like they’ve been had by a press corp that calls itself objective when it patently is not.
There is much more. I recommend Erickson's analysis in entirety, especially ahead of the VP debate. Being aware of the bias is the first step to picking it out yourself without needing someone point it out for you. Listen to the moderator questions for Biden versus Ryan. Listen to the post-debate  'analysis.' See what the fact-checkers check and what they don't check. Think about your personal responses to what Biden and Ryan say and ask yourself if they are really your own responses or just a product of "political correctness" stemming from liberalism. Then read a few conservative analyses (or watch Fox) for an opposite take on the debate and see which analysis you agree with. You really can't make an educated opinion without considering more than one point of view.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Conservatism works

I've seen plenty of media outlets and liberals' comments that the rich don't pay their fair share, that in other countries the rich pay more of the taxes, the difference between top earners and low earners is biggest, yada yada. There's a problem with this kind of thinking. It's not based on facts! I know they think it is, but massaged data is not the same as raw data. You can analyze data to say anything you want it to say - I know this as a scientist. Unlike science with peer-reviewed articles, however, the media can get away with sketchy analyses without any immediate consequences.

Until now.

Never before have more Americans distrusted the media or been more aware of the skewed information they are presented. This means more Americans turn to other sources, such as conservative media, to get to the bottom of any story.

Take this, for example. WSJ's Stephen Moore has a new book out, "Who's the Fairest of them All: the Truth about Opporutunity, Taxes, and Wealth in America." I read the The Washington Times review, which showcases Moore's claims that the media narrative is false: that the rich in America pay a larger tax burden than any other country. They also reviewed what happened every single time the top tax rate was lowered in this country over the past 100 years. The result of the tax cuts? More revenue from top earners. Every time. Why? More people were making more money so the government collected more in taxes. Just as Mitt Romney claimed in the debate last week. You'll never see this data - raw and unmassaged - as a headline anywhere but conservative media. But it doesn't make it less true. Yet Obama's false claim that Romney wants to cut $5T in taxes continues, even after the debate.

Here's another example: the movie Obama's America: 2016 (also Hating Breitbart). I've seen so many reports of people who changed their minds - or at least opened their minds - about Obama when presented with more information about his record in that film. The information that the media should be reporting, but they aren't and they never will cover that kind of thing because who would vote for a liberal if they did? They're liberals themselves by a large margin - over 90%, according to a study done in 2008.

Ready to watch the vice presidential debate tomorrow night? Jim Lehrer did a better job staying out of it than I anticipated though he still tried to throw Obama a rope a couple times. I'm expect more imbalance in the moderation tomorrow night. Biden needs all the help he can get! Easier questions, probably. More respect from the moderator, probably. Hopefully not more time - that would be too obvious. I don't expect Paul Ryan to get any more rattled than Romney did, given this opportunity to speak to the Americans directly without the standard media spin against him with whatever he says. Before the pundits rehash it, at any rate. I'm hoping that Paul Ryan will, like Romney, talk about the real data about Obama and Biden's record that is so often withheld from Americans by the media.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Book of Mormon revisited

Last week I wrote about socialism and the Book of Mormon. I'd like to follow up on that.

As a reminder or FYI, socialism is NOT taught or practiced in the Book of Mormon or the Bible. On the contrary, the United Order taught in the scriptures depends on selfless people who consistently put their own needs behind those of others. It depends on people working just as hard for others' welfare as they naturally would for their own welfare. Socialism doesn't work because people are naturally selfish, and won't work hard to benefit others. Before it could ever work, people have to root out selfishness by uniformly following Jesus Christ. Otherwise the system breaks down, as we have record of in the scriptures and in early LDS history.

To continue. Just as I've seen confusion among Mormon liberals about the distinctions between socialism and the United Order, I see confusion about the role of government versus the role of individuals in charitable causes. King Benjamin's discourse in the Book of Mormon is quite clear, in my opinion, that people who covenant with God to comfort and bless those in need have the responsibility to do so directly. Themselves. Paying taxes that goes towards government welfare does not absolve one of this obligation or privilege, depending on how one looks at it. Sure, it's easier to just pay taxes. But discipleship of Jesus Christ is not meant to be easy. It is supposed to be personal, as Christ's own ministry was, as well as that of many prophets. Besides, government has way too much overhead compared with nonprofit charitable organizations, and provide relatively few volunteer opportunities.

No, taxes don't cut it. On the contrary, over and over in the Book of Mormon the prophets wrote about the great burden that taxes were to the people (at less rates on average than Americans are taxed today, in fact). Taxes limited their prosperity and their freedom both as individuals and as a society. King Benjamin (among others such as Nephi) "labored with his own hands" that his people need not work for his support. It sure would be nice to see more of that attitude in our politicians today!

Monday, October 8, 2012

Washington D.C.

I just got back from a trip there, and let me tell you my impressions. For the record, I grew up in the area but haven't been back for several years.

The metropolitan area is bigger than ever, richer than ever, with higher prices than ever and more traffic than ever. Home values never dropped. There is no recession in D. C. Why all this continued growth? Because the entire community feeds off of federal dollars, and federal government has grown continually since the 70's. New Bureaus, agencies, more staff for existing agencies, etc. The area is rich with salaries that can be grossly inflated compared to the private sector.

D. C. is out of touch with the rest of the country. They live at our expense. Taxpayers pay for their lavish lifestyles.

It's time for them to make the same cuts to their budgets the rest of us already have and give the rest of us a chance at growth! That will never happen if we continue to be taxed at increasing rates (Jan 1 brings Taxmageddon impacting tax rates for every American) and have government-caused inflation and if government continues to grow with reckless abandon, as it has under Obama. We're talking over $5T more added to the total deficit in less than four years.

Go Romney!

Saturday, October 6, 2012

General Conference

This weekend is the semiannual General Conference for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mormons all over the world tune into BYUtv or to listen to the prophets and apostles speak to the entire Church membership. If you are curious about what a Mormon prophet or other general Church leader is like or what they say, now you have a great opportunity! Sessions are Saturday and Sunday from 12-2pm ET and 4-6pm ET both days. You can watch what you missed or read the transcripts or watch the remaining session of General Conference live.

Friday, October 5, 2012

The Post-Debate Coverage

I want you to think about the follow-up media talking points after the debate.

I see media disappointment in Obama. I see coverage of Obama's excuses, and those of his advisers. I see no one questioning the Mitt Romney campaign, as fair and balanced coverage would require.

I see media piling on Mitt Romney's facts with their biased fact-checkers, while they fail to check many of Obama's "facts," as fair and balanced coverage - or fact-checking - would require.

I see media commiserating with Obama over the poor job numbers (and other economic indicators) and tiptoeing by them, even though they are the same media who couldn't leave Bush's deficit or unemployments alone but instead were shouting them from the housetops. Obama's numbers are all worse than Bush's (and not his fault four years later) but the media is not shouting Obama's poor numbers from the housetop, as fair and balanced coverage would require. Mitt Romney did draw a lot of attention to them, but the media is doing its best to bury that too.

Read both sides, my friends. There is no way on earth to get all the information you need to make a rational decision with only the news media for a source.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

The debate!

What a night. I'm glad I tuned in. I was surprised there were no commercial breaks full of "analysis" but boy I was glad I was not forced to waste my time listening to any of that. If you missed the actual debate, please watch it or read the transcript.  Listening to anyone else analyze it for you (including me) is not going to be instructive, it will just sway your own opinion or try to sway your opinion, including the 'fact-checkers.' So watch it first.

For those of you who did, now I'll tell you what I thought! I thought both men did a good job of engaging listeners, for the most part. They were civil. They were clear most of the time. The exception to that is Obama who really rambled and strung incoherent ideas together when he couldn't defend his record. Obama wasn't as arrogant as usual, so that was nice. Nice to not be subjected to his "superiority" for a change.

Of the two of them, Romney came across the most genuine and caring. He talked about real struggles. He talked about all the many studies about the disastrous effects of some of Obama's policies, etc. and how they have negatively impacted the economy, jobs, cost of living and thus American lives. He talked about the needs of small business and what small businesses say they need right now - and it sure isn't Obamacare and higher taxes that are coming down the pipeline Jan 1. Best of all, I feel like he finally explained how you "grow the pie."

As I have explained before, by lowering taxes and creating a pro-growth environment, revenue is not hurt because there are more taxpayers and higher incomes which are taxed, thus making up for any difference in revenue created by cutting rates. Romney gave a masterful explanation early in the debate. Obama ignored it and kept hammering his same old tired points about 'math' which is ironic, because if he did his own math he'd realize that the federal revenue is down with his high unemployment rates from high taxes during a recession.

The only big difference in how the two of them debated is that Romney played both offense and defense, and Obama was playing mostly offense with little defense. He has little he can say about his weak record so it really is best for him to ignore those comments and instead attack Romney, even though it gives him away (for those paying attention) that he is unable to defend himself as to why he wants to keep going with the same policies that have kept us in a down economy in the first place. He channeled Bill Clinton a couple times, but you know what? Bill Clinton only had a decent economic record because Newt Gingrich muscled through tax cuts and a balanced budget!

I can't think of a single time that Romney passed by the opportunity to defend his record, in contrast. He did well. I hope this debate gives whatever undecideds are left out there the impetus to look into Romney separate from the media reports of him. Which are hopefully flawed and skewed compared to his real record. Go Romney!

Wednesday, October 3, 2012


I hope you enjoy the debate tonight, I know I'm sure looking forward to it.

Today I'd like to talk about bias. A few days ago I deleted some unprintable comments referring to my 'blindness.' As in, I don't think for myself because I pointed out a couple points brought up by Rush Limbaugh. Absurdity! He obviously didn't realize I draw information from and repond to information from many different sources.

The great irony of these deleted comments is that very day or maybe the day before, Rush himself mentioned that if you talk about his ideas without crediting him, people think about it and agree they're good points. If, however, you credit Rush as the source, many people will spout off media talking points of Rush Limbaugh and stop listening with an open mind. The media has trained people to equate Rush Limbaugh with evil. Blindness!

And proving Rush's point to me, I had these comments. Oh, the irony.

The point being, the media trains people to respond to some issues and people in a certain way, and if people aren't concious of it, they follow along blindly. 

Don't do yourselves the dishonor of believing all the bad the media says of Mitt Romney. Or believing that Obama has nothing bad about him as the media wants you to believe. Or believing what they say of Rush Limbaugh. For heaven's sake, give the man a listen for yourself before you judge him! Give him a few weeks, say until Election Day. It takes more than a day to understand where Rush is coming from and what he means, etc. Just like it does with any other person on this planet.

Consider multiple points of view on every person and every issue, because only in that way can you know if you are being misled by one opinion or the other.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Romney's chance

Do you remember that the media was calling for Romney to stand up and tell us all about how his experiences in the LDS Church have shaped him? He took his sweet time, but did answer those questions in a setting where the media couldn't "interpret" and "spin" his words against him before people heard for themselves: the GOP convention! There, we heard testimonials of Romney's compassion, charity, and service in and out of the LDS Church.

Romney, of all politicians, knows that he cannot control the message from the media while running as a Republican candidate. They are set against him and for Obama and always will be. He doesn't often allow the press to tag along with his campaign, as a result. This is smart.

While he can't help the media and Democrats talking about him anyway, what they say has less substance and authenticity. Even the 47% remark taken ridiculously out of context is only believed by those who are liberal like the press. The media made up a Romney that doesn't match up with personal accounts of the real Romney in the slightest. Consequently, when we hear from Romney in person (before being subjected to the media's spinning), we are always pleasantly surprised at the man.

Tomorrow night we have such an opportunity to get to know Romney, the candidate for president of the United States. Make the most of it!

Don't believe the media and Democrats saying Romney is a fake, a fraud, a phony. They will, I know, but it doesn't make it true. You can tell how scared the media is for Obama when they villify his opposition to this degree. If the Republicans were really as bad as the media says they are, they wouldn't be a threat! So much for fair and balanced coverage. No, I've looked into Romney's history and character enough to know that I trust him to do what he says he will do. Obama's record, on the other hand, proved he makes empty promises.

Meanwhile, the media fails to report (among many, many, many other things) that unless a budget deal is reached and the tax cuts extended by our Congressman, 9 in 10 households will see a tax increase come Jan 1, 2013. Obama is in favor of these increases. Romney is not. The whole budget mess is a creation of politicians.
Keep in mind, though, that this whole "fiscal cliff" mess was brought to you by the very people who are supposed to fix it. At some point, you have to stop punting and actually fix the problem.
Obama hasn't shown much leadership with budget deals in the past (refusing to even speak to the GOP minority leaders his first two years, and walking away from a deal in the third year).  I'm not hopeful he'll show more leadership this time around. Libya has shown us that he hasn't changed his colors in the interim.

Look for leadership, in the debates. Look for references to records, past and present. Pay attention to whether Obama and/or Romney walk the walk. They'll tear each other's records to shreds, I'm sure, but you can always reference fact-checkers or better yet, do some fact-checking of your own by checking with both liberal and conservative sites after the debate, since the traditional fact-checkers are in the bag for Obama and don't check everything that needs checking.

I'll tell you right now that if you do this, you'll be confident as I am that Romney is a leader and can make necessary fiscal changes in the federal government to bring our entitlement programs back to solvency and stop this $1T annual additional deficit thing Obama's got going on, all while putting money back in American's pockets by retuning to pro-growth policies that will grow jobs and GDP. Go Romney!

Monday, October 1, 2012

Socialism and the Book of Mormon

I've seen several references to the "socialism" taught in the Book of Mormon (and the Bible). I can see where these people get this idea, but there is certainly more to it, because socialism is not taught. At all.

First of all, you must understand that those invited to live a communal lifestyle in the scriptures were members of the Church of Jesus Christ, and called Saints because of their devotion to following Jesus Christ, who taught people to turn the other cheek, love each other, and live a higher law. This communal lifestyle worked if and only if the Saints put others before self. This is hard. Everyone has to want to work hard for the benefit of others or the society disintegrates. In the New Testament, Ananias and his wife plotted to cheat the Saints and were struck dead for their selfishness. Humans are naturally selfish. The communal order only works if selfishness is rooted out - by putting off the natural man.

Evidence of that is plain in the history of the early Latter-day Saints, who were not prepared to live selflessly enough to make a communal lifestyle work long-term, and throughout the history of each and every socialist country. In this kind of society, a work ethic doesn't get you anything extra so work ethics disappear by the wayside. Only in a selfless mindset where everyone works hard can a communal society thrive. Rush Limbaugh loves to tell the story of the Pilgrims, who lived communally for the first year and didn't have enough food to last them the winter without the kindness of the Native Americans. The next year they switched to a capalistic model and had abundant food, enough to share with the Native Americans.

If you visit Eastern Europe or China you will immediately notice that the lack of free enterprise (capitalism) means less products, fewer services, lower quality, and lower quantity. Why? Without an incentive (profit) to working hard, people are lazy and selfish by nature. Kind of like some union labor. People are paid the same whether or not they work hard, so most in these kinds of unions are pretty lazy and do the bare minimum. The socialist mindset is exactly like that. The iphone wasn't invented in a socialist country nor could it have been!

You can see the ill effects of redistribution in the United States already. I've lived in South Chiago and I've seen how the welfare system is abused. Getting on welfare is the ultimate goal for a lot of people, because it means they'll never have to work again. They seek welfare of all kinds by hook or by crook. It creates an incentive for teenage girls to get pregnant and drop out of school. It creates an incentive for people to overeat and get on disability from their obesity. It creates an incentive for people to get into government housing, food stamps, and healthcare because what else do they need? Chicago adds a spending account for those (approved) without a job, meaning it creates an incentive for them to not look for any other income. This in turn leads to an increase in crime because so many people are idle and into drugs (with welfare money or dealing) and gangs, etc. They honestly don't think they have something better to do with their time - like working a job! Is this where you want your taxes going? I don't. Imagine if all of America got lazier to get paid to do nothing but make trouble (not that they all do). Who would keep paying after the takers exceed the payers? The government is already spending more of our money than they have to use.

This is all selfish. The government is selfish for taxpayer money. The welfare state is selfish for taxpayer money. The taxpayers want to keep more of their own money (selfish) so they can use it how they want instead of being forced to hand it over to the government. But the welfare state requires more and more taxpayer money, and our government has already spent more taxpayer money than exists in all of our salaries - $16T is not a small number! Who do takers think will pay the bills once the government checks bounce? They've already been downgraded, after all. And QE3 will add to inflation making the cost of living go up. Again. Meaning we'll have to stretch our dollars even further.

Obama is allowing states to get rid of the work requirement for welfare. This is bad for America. It will kill the American Dream. It fosters further laziness which never has, will not now, and never will create economic growth or abundance or shrink the deficit. Entitlement is not compassion (use the link if you don't understand or disagree). I'd rather they give my money to the people who really need it than people who just want to be freeloaders.

This is the fundamental difference between the two political parties: one believes that charity can and should come from individuals rather than government. As it has for centuries. And the other believes that only the government could do the job, but simultaneously increases the overhead, decreases the efficiency, and takes the individual heart out of giving. Who wants to pay taxes compared to giving to someone in need? One is mandatory and you write the check only because you could go to jail if you didn't, and the other you do out of the goodness of your heart and it feels good. One adds to economic malaise making everyone (except the takers) worse off; the other adds to economic prosperity by sharing the wealth and jobs and growth.

The numbers concur with the Republican model, not that the liberal media reports those numbers because they're in the tank for big government and big taxes. They're out there, all the same.