In Favor of Mitt

I was speaking to my son recently. He’s a High School student and has been complaining to me regarding the ignorance of his classmates. Most of them are Obama supporters but have no idea, other than repeating clichéd sound bites, why they believe what they claim to believe.

He suggested I request of the school, to call an assembly, where I stand up on stage and allow the students to ask me questions, so that I may dispel many of their liberal myths.

I suggested that we not go that route, for now, and that I may do some short, write-ups regarding these liberal talking-points.

Mitt Romney wants to shut down Planned Parenthood

Let’s look at Planned Parenthood. About one-third of Planned Parenthood’s funding comes from Taxpayer dollars. Even those taxpayers who don’t happen to want to pay for other people’s abortions are forced to contribute.

Mitt wants to stop providing taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood. They are a private company, kind of. He can’t and wouldn’t shut them down. If they can survive without government funds, like every other company, let them .

Well, what about women’s health issues? Mitt Romney doesn’t care about women. What about the cancer screenings and mammograms Planned Parenthood does? He will shut them down.

Well, Planned Parenthood does NOT do mammograms. They never did. They don’t have the equipment, training or licensing.

Well, what about cancer screenings? Romney wants to defund those.

What cancer screenings? The cancer screenings they speak of are for breast cancer only and they are only licensed and allowed to perform Level 1 screenings, which is the exact method used by women when they self-examine at home.

Planned Parenthood is an abortion clinic, pure and simple.

The creator and founder of Planned Parenthood was a woman named Margaret Sanger. What a wonderful woman she was, unless you were black.

She was a flaming racist and a Eugenist who wanted to start Planned Parenthood to kill off the black babies. She even spoke at Ku Klux Klan rallies. What a wonderful person and a great organization.

Mitt wants to Shut Down Public Television & Kill Big Bird 

PBS, the Public Broadcasting System, receives about 17% of its funds from the government. Actually the government doesn’t actually give them anything; you and I do, whether we want to or not.

Since Big Bird seems to be the headliner of this topic, let’s talk about Sesame Street.

Sesame Street cost about $17 million to produce a year.

Now let’s look at how much they make.  Make money? I thought they were PBS, a non-profit organization? Think again.

Marketing rights, you know, toys, games, etc., bring in about $1.3 billion a year for just Sesame Street and Barney alone and another $47 million in other licensing for Sesame Street.

So Sesame Street makes a boat-load of cash.

Those on the left are always saying they are for fairness, correct? Like Obama says, they just want to level the playing field.

Well, let’s think about this. How fair is it for one TV network to receive government money and the others not? Shouldn’t we then give an equal amount to Fox News? Would that not be fair?

Here’s another idea. It’s called “Revenue Sharing”. It works great in the NFL. Instead of taking our (taxpayer) money, why doesn’t Sesame Street level the playing field and give the extra money to the less fortunate programs that are struggling.

Mitt is going take money from the Middle Class to pay for his “Tax Cuts for the Rich”

First off, Mitt doesn’t wish to give the rich an additional income tax cut. He merely wishes to leave all the tax rates the same as they’ve been for more than a decade.

He does, however, wish to cut or eliminate some taxes. The estate tax for instance, or more aptly named, the death tax. You work your whole life, save your money, so that when you die you may pass that on to your loved ones, but the government swoops in and takes half. What did they do for that money? You already paid a ton of taxes on that money. How much do they think they deserve?

He wants to lower taxes on investments and capital gains.

Let me see a show of hands of everyone who works for, or who has been hired by a poor person. I thought not.

Here’s how it works. Companies and individuals make money. They don’t just hide the money in a mattress. They invest it and grow their businesses. As the business grows they must hire more people. If that money is being taken away by taxation, they can’t grow and thus they can’t hire.

Well, Mitt still can’t pay for all his tax cuts, right?

This is an assumption of a “Zero Sum Game”, as it were. “Zero Sum” just means for anything I receive, I must take it from you. The pot never gets larger.

Socialism is “Zero Sum”; capitalism is not.

Government gets it’s money by collecting taxes. If you lower tax rates and eliminate some taxes, the government will actually end up with more money. HUH?

Okay, the government lowers tax rates and get’s rid of some others. That leaves people with a lot more money. They can now invest more in their businesses, hiring more people. Every person they hire is a taxpayer. The more taxpayers you have, the more taxes are collected, the more money coming in. The pot just got a lot larger.

The Hug Said It All

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Well, it took me a while to realize what I was actually watching during the final Romney/Obama debate.

As Charles Krauthammer so aptly described in his post-debate analysis; it was Romney going big and Obama going small. I might add that Obama didn’t just go small, but also petty.

Obama did his darndest to pull Romney into his own micro-squabbling world, but Mitt just would not take the bait and one could tell by the look on the presidents face that his, or someone’s (maybe Axelrod’s) strategy wasn’t working.

This is what took me some time to figure out. I finally realized that Romney was Ronald Reagan and Obama was Saul Alinsky.

Romney’s strategy seemed to be to stay above the fray. Be friendly and likeable while choosing the battles he could frame with big overarching themes. Romney appeared more likeable as Obama insulted and demeaned him.

The times Mitt did engage Obama, he showed he had a firm grasp of the issues. He felt he did not have to dwell on any particular issue or go into detail. Instead, just to reassure the American public that he knows his stuff and can be trusted. This would, of course, drew the ire and insults from the president.

Frankly, if one didn’t know better, one would think Romney was president and Obama was the challenger.

Now, for those of us who are conservative and keep abreast of all the issues, the overly agreeable and aisle-crossing Romney was a bit frustrating, but this debate was not intended for us. It was the final debate and Romney calculated that he could pull in the balance of the “undecideds” with a grander theme. I think it worked and the Obama team appeared to be blind-sided by it.

About 30 minutes in, I realized we were not watching a debate on foreign policy at all. Romney masterfully kept bringing it back to the American economy, his strongest suit. He reiterated time and again that American foreign policy was dependent upon a strong economy, which only he could restore.

The specific points he did make were fact-checked and he was found to be 100% correct.

The matter of General Motors was a great example. Romney claimed he wrote an op-ed in the Wallstreet journal describing how he thought GM should be guided through a controlled bankruptcy, enabling the car company to free itself from debt and other obligations. He said that the government should guarantee loans and such to help them recover. Obama flatly stated that Romney was not telling the truth and he did not say this. It was fact-checked and what Romney had written years earlier was exactly as he described it during the debate.

The lowest light (there were many low lights) for Obama was, of course, the discussion over the size of our Navy. Romney stated that our Navy is smaller than any time since the early 20th century. He is correct, by the way.

Obama, in a condescending tone, explained that things are different now and we also don’t use horses and bayonets any longer either. Mr. Romney must just not understand modern warfare. Well, in fact, Mr. Obama, the military still uses bayonets and have many times, utilized the horse in Afghanistan. How odd you didn’t know that.

Toward the close of the debate was a discussion on trade and the imbalance with China. This was a walk-off home run for Romney. It was even more satisfying seeing the moderator, Bob Schieffer, desperately trying to help the beleaguered president, to no avail. They could do nothing but watch as Mitt calmly and succinctly presented his case for dealing with China.

This brings me to the hug. Romney won the debate and both he and Obama knew it, the minute it was over. How can I be so sure? Easy; body language.

As the debate ended they both got up, shook hands, at which time, their wives approached them on stage. Mitt was all smiles as he hugged his wife. The cameras were rolling on both the candidates. Simultaneously, Obama hugged Michelle. No smile, eyes closed, with a rather somber look on his face. His expression gave me the impression he knew it was over.

A simple hug was all it took for me to declare a winner, although, by that time, I and most others already knew.

World Leaders for Barack

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Over the past several months, President Obama has been amassing the support of famous world leaders and other international notables (not to mention Hollywood Mensa members like Eva Longoria).

Well, I for one, think that’s terrific. It’s great to hear the rest of the world has as much confidence in our dear president as we do.

It’s not often, nor conventional, for foreign dignitaries to do such a thing. Most world leaders prefer to stay neutral so that they might have an opportunity to work with whichever side emerges victorious.

But these bold leaders are different. They choose not to “sell out” to convention.

So who might these world leaders be, you ask?

Well, there’s Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, who, just recently, assured us he’d vote for Obama if he were from the United States. The America-bashing dictator made the announcement on state-owned television, saying “Obama is a good guy” and that if Obama was from Caracas, he’d surely return the favor by voting for Chavez.

Actually Hugo could just catch a flight into Los Angeles the morning of November 6th, cast his ballot (several times, if he so chooses) and catch the next flight back to Caracas.

Earlier in the year the government-official daughter of Cuban military dictator Raul Castro proclaimed her country’s support for Obama during a visit to the U.S. “I believe that Obama needs another opportunity and he needs greater support to move forward with his projects and with his ideas, which I believe come from the bottom of his heart,” Mariela Castro said during a cable news interview.

I agree that they come from the bottom of something.

Was the word “Forward” used intentionally or, in the words of the later painter, Bob Ross, ” just a happy accident”?

“Forward” is the official Obama re-election slogan and, if you recall, “forward” was also a well-known communist slogan. You may read about it here.

Putin called his U.S. counterpart “a genuine person” who “really wants to change much for the better.” Speaking to Russia’s state-run RT television channel, he said a second Obama term could help solve disputes over missile defense. By “solving” disputes, he means, we would unilaterally disarm, as Obama is already doing and Vlad would retain all Russia’s arsenal by not cutting their nuclear warhead stockpile. There, dispute solved.

As an aside; how come Obama can’t have a state-run television network like his contemporaries? Oh wait, he does. NBC, ABC, CBS, etc.

And why shouldn’t Puty Pute endorse Barack, after the now infamous chat between Obama and then president Dmitri Medvedev, where Barack told Dimitri, ” This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility”. Dimitri then reassures Obama, ” I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladamir”.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the benevolent president of Iran favors Barack over Mitt.

The French Socialist leader is a fan of Barack, yet the famous freedom fighter from Poland, Lech Walesa is not. He is supporting Mitt Romney. Lech probably just wants to take away Polish womens’ right to contraception, like Mitt. What a jerk.

United Nations special rapporteur (investigator) on counterterrorism and human rights Ben Emmerson came out and took aim at Republican candidate Mitt Romney on Friday telling The Canadian Press, “There is no doubt that the Romney administration would be able to claim — in the event of a Romney presidency — a democratic mandate for torture.” “That would put Romney as the first world leader in history to be able to claim a democratic mandate for torture,” Emmerson said. This is the same Emmerson who helped defend the radical cleric and terrorist Abu Qatada, as well as other terror suspects. Sounds like an Obama endorsement to me.

All these stalwarts of the free world endorsing one man. Barack must be so proud. After all, he says he favors coalition building and what a great one he has built.

Seriously, how is it these evil people all support the same American candidate? Does this not tell us something?

It would be like Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer and O.J. all supporting the same person for Chief of Police. You know, the one who arrests the bad guys. Would that not be strange?

Would you not think, if these evil criminals are supporting the same individual as am I, at the very least, should I take another, more critical look at my candidate?

Let’s Debate the Lies

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Debate ain’t just something you put on a fishhook, but with all the lies flying around, it smelled as bad during the last one.

Obama said the Benghazi incident in Libya was a terror attack: Pardon me for beginning with the most blatant assault on your senses. No he did not say that & he knows he’s lying! And by the way, the UN Ambassador, Rice is not part of the State Department; so who, if not Obama, sent her out to continually lie about the attack being caused by a silly video that no one saw?

The president is Mr. Energy: This would be a real knee slapper it weren’t so serious. Obama is enemy number one to the energy sector and he knows it, with the wholesale closings of coal plants, lawsuits against gas producers and oil producers and moratoriums on drilling and exploration of public lands. Mitt Romney was 100% correct regarding his facts on Obama’s record for both oil production and coal.

Mitt Romney has investments in China: Yes he does and as he stated so does Obama, as well as millions of other American citizens. And there is no larger investor in China than GM, Government Motors, Barack’s poster child for government bailouts, where 7 out of 10 of their manufacturing plants are in China. You like apples, UAW? How do you like them apples?

Middle Class tax cuts: He told us he would cut our taxes and he did. Obama has not cut mine or your taxes. Tax cuts are not rebates or temporary tax holidays. When one says, “I will cut your taxes”, the other hears and understands, my tax rate will be cut. Obama has done no such thing, nor will he.

Romney’s Taxes:When Obama said,” Mr. Romney thinks it’s fair to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse or bus driver”, Barack is either stupid or lying. Since we all know “The One” is

There are No Secrets

a genius, he must be a liar. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of tax policy would know that capital gains and dividends are always taxed at a lower rate than is regular income. Why? It’s simple. Capital gains and other investment incomes are actually double taxed. The money is first taxed as income and then that income is invested and taxed again. Sounds fair, eh?

Obama wants equal time to speak during the Debate: Well, he didn’t get it. In fact, in all three debates; the 2 presidential and 1 V.P. event, the democrat candidate had more time than his republican challenger. Obama had a full 10% more time during the last debate. So when John Candy-Crowley told Barack, he’d get his chance to speak, she wasn’t kidding.

We didn’t lose a dime bailing out the banks: Wrongo! Pants on Fire! The same day Obama made that statement the CBO confirmed we lost $24 billion taxpayer dollars on the bank bailouts.

Barack administration created 5 million new jobs during his great recovery: That sounds great but he neglected one important thing; to subtract all the jobs that were lost. Just a minor detail, I know. That’s like saying the Patriots scored 23 points last week. That’s fabulous until you add up the points the Seahawks scored, which were 24.

Barack saved General Motors, while Romney wanted to force them into bankruptcy: In fact government motors did go through a managed bankruptcy guided by the Obama administration and their cronies, which left most investors including the bondholders with virtually nothing. Mitt Romney knows, and so, I’m sure, does Barack Obama, that a standard corporate bankruptcy is not an automatic death sentence for the company. It simply allows them to write off debt and restructure thus becoming more competitive and able to survive. One doesn’t close the door and fire everybody just because they go through bankruptcy, and Obama, no doubt, knows this. Oh by the way, GM stills owes the taxpayers in excess of $35 billion and we will never see it!

Equal pay for women: Fun fact: Women who work on Obama’s own staff make a minimum of 18% less than their male counterparts.

Obama Wins Debate!

by: the Common Constitutionalist

It’s 6:00 pm, Tuesday, October 16,2012 and I have a prediction.

Barack Obama won the Town hall-style debate!

Yes, I know it’s still a few hours before the start. So how can I call it already, you ask?

Simple. The story has been written.  The mainstream media is so “in the tank” for Obama, that unless Mitt Romney overwhelms him once again he will be declared the winner.

That is, of course, their biggest fear; that Romney will completely outclass the president as he did in the first debate and the media will be unable to declare their beloved president the victor.

The media is lucky, in one regard; that the debate format is a Town hall with a small “needy” audience.

I understand that there are to be approximately 80 attendees. These attendees are supposed to be undecided or independent voters selected by the Gallup organization by means of polling.

I haven’t seen nor heard the selection process of the Gallup group, but if it’s anything like the other public polling organizations, save for Rasmussen, rest assured Romney will receive the short end of the stick, as it were.

The audience may not be packed with the leftists but you can bet there’ll be enough to tip the scales in Obama’s favor.

Candy Crowley of CNN, the fair and balanced news organization, will be the moderator for tonight’s debate. She is neither fair nor balanced. She wants Obama to win as much as the other leftists and will do everything in her power as moderator to make it so.

Crowley has already made it known that she will dispense with the agreed-upon rules about asking her own questions and will interject any time she sees fit. That seems perfectly reasonable.

In other words, if she doesn’t get the result she is looking for, Ms. Crowley will just press the point until she does.

As an aside, why in the heck does the Romney campaign put up with this nonsense? Why is it that there is never a single conservative moderator at these debates? I have asked this same question for years. Why do the Republicans put up with this crap? Why not simply have two moderators? For every Candy Crowley or PBS hack, there could be a Michelle Malkin or an Ann Coulter, etc.

The deck is stacked against Mitt Romney, in two ways. First, you have a liberal moderator who already said she’s throwing out the rules and will do whatever she pleases to facilitate Obama’s victory. Okay, she didn’t say the facilitate part, but it is implied. Second, it’s a town hall format. Town halls are notorious for attracting the needy; the people who just want government to do something for them.

The advantage that we may have this time is that regardless of whom is in the room, Mitt Romney will most assuredly be the smartest one in it.

With that intelligence and overall good grasp of the issues, as was demonstrated in the last debate; Romney may be able to climb out of the hole that the leftists have dug for him.

One way or the other Mitt Romney has an uphill battle facing him tonight.

As usually occurs during these town hall debates, the questions will be mostly inane.

Questions like, “Mr. Romney, I’m having trouble paying for my Harvard tuition. How can the government help me?” Maybe Stella in the third row will ask, “Mr. Romney, I need a new kitchen. What can the government do for me?”

Another audience member may ask a hard-hitting question of the president, such as, ” Tell me sir, why are you so awesome?” Ms. Crowley will then add, “Yes, why is that?”

Mitt will of course try to answer the questions honestly and candidly whereas King Barack will just lie to them and pander. Naturally, that will be good enough for Ms. Crowley.

As I stated before, the story has already been written. Within the war rooms of all the major media outlets, tomorrow’s headline has been crafted and will read, “Obama, the Comeback Kid.”

Let’s just hope that Romney can once again come out firing on all cylinders, forcing them to rewrite tomorrow’s headline.

Our Hundred Years’ War

by: John Myers

with a few comments thrown in by the Common Constitutionalist [ ]

The race for the Presidency has been interesting, not because of what either GOP nominee Mitt Romney or President Barack Obama has said, but because of what has been ignored.

The most notable taboo topic is the Nation’s continued involvement in Afghanistan as well as the progressive deterioration of American strategic goals for the Mideast.

Neither candidate has been candid on a geopolitical blunder in Afghanistan that continues to rack up hundreds of billions of dollars in additional debt and potentially thousands of American deaths.

Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and author of Ending the US War in Afghanistan: A Primer, contends that neither candidate has a way for America to extricate itself from Afghanistan. [ I do. Like every superpower before, admit it is a fools errand and leave ]

In an interview1, Bennis said:

Candidate Obama has now stopped talking about Afghanistan this time around. Candidate Romney has said that Obama is not tough enough, but what he has called for has not been different in any substantive way. He has said that we should keep troops there, not pull out right away. President Obama is not pulling out right away, so there’s very little substantive difference.

What is inescapable is that this month marks the beginning of the 12th year of war in Afghanistan; it is America’s longest war. What has been ignored by American strategists is that Afghanistan is a desolate, Stone Age nation that refuses to be civilized and has successfully resisted past and present superpowers, a group that includes not only the United States but also the British Empire and the Soviet Union.

Washington has ignored this historical truth and has so far invested nearly over a half a trillion dollars in fighting a losing struggle that has cost us more than 2,000 dead. [ Not so fun fact: 1) Cost of Afghan war in 12 years is over $580 billion, but over $360 billion has been spent in just 3-1/2 years under Obama. 2) More than 2,000 U.S. soldiers killed; 69% killed in just 3-1/2 years on Obama’s watch ]

Obama has promised to end the U.S. combat role in Afghanistan by December 2014, although the United States has pledged to continue some undefined military and economic support well beyond that date. How far the United States will offer support beyond that date is open to speculation. Given the growing conflict with millions of radical followers of Islam, it doesn’t seem impossible that right now America has a future President who is in college and who, decades from now, will be deciding his strategies to defend America from an ever-expanding Muslim mob. [ Myers is right and that is sad. The way I see it, we either stay and finish the job, which can’t be done, or pack up everyone and everything and leave. So I guess that’s really only one choice ]

Afghan war strategists in the Obama Administration agree there is little chance of negotiations with the Taliban that would bring a political settlement to the war.

The question is why would the Taliban want to negotiate with the United States? Some 12 years into this war, American soldiers on patrol can’t determine who the biggest threat is: the enemy fighters in the countryside or their Afghan allies who once protected their backs but have increasingly been taking aim at them. [ The real question is, why would we think we could negotiate with them? What would we negotiate? That they would be so kind as to kill us last? ]

Gareth Porter, a historian and investigative journalist on U.S. foreign and military policy, said: “The Taliban have been able to carry out spectacular attacks on U.S. bases that have gotten much farther and done much more damage than anything the Vietcong and North Vietnamese were ever able to do during the Vietnam War.” [ Of course they have, considering how pitifully weak and restrictive our rules of engagement are ]

In an interview with The Guardian newspaper2, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen admitted the killings of almost 50 allied troops this year by Afghan security forces has damaged the relationship between the international forces and the Afghan police and military. [ Damaged our relationship? Screw our relationship. Our all-volunteer heros are being murdered ]

The Much Bigger War

Unspoken by both Presidential candidates is how America can win the war far beyond Afghanistan, a war without borders against elusive enemies with unspecific goals united only in their hatred of the United States. [ They have very specific goals; kill all of us ]

“The enemies we face in the future will look a lot like al Qaeda: transnational, globalized, locally franchised, extensively outsourced–but tied together through a powerful identity that leaps frontiers and continents,” wrote Mark Steyn in America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It.

“All dominant powers are hated–Britain was, and Rome–but they’re usually hated for the right reasons. America is hated for every reason. The fanatical Muslims despise America because it’s all lap-dancing and gay porn; the secular Europeans despise America because it’s all born-again Christians hung up on abortion; the anti-Semites despise America because it’s controlled by Jews. Too Jewish, too Christian, too godless, America is George Orwell’s Room 101: whatever your bugbear you will find it therein; whatever you’re against, America is the prime example of it.” [ As usual, Steyn is dead-on right ]

We no longer face a monolithic enemy like communism. What we do face is an enemy that will persist in its extremism and its hatred of the United States long after the upcoming occupant leaves the Oval Office.

And yet our policymakers continue to be like old generals and persist with fighting the last war. That war was won by outspending the enemy. Eventually, the Soviet Union imploded because that empire simply could not afford the cost of the Cold War. Today, America’s strategists are spending even more money on everything from nuclear aircraft battle groups to ultra-sophisticated fighter-interceptors like the Raptor F-22 which costs $420 million per plane.

Expenditures on these types of weapons put the Pentagon’s budget at $670 billion this year, about 18 percent of total Federal spending. The dollar amount has more than doubled since 2001 when the United States began its wars against Islamic extremists. It is hard for me to see how jet inceptors or nuclear submarines can effectively combat the growing radical contingent within Islam which continues on its jihad. [ They can’t, but Jihadists won’t always be the only threat to America. As long as there are communist countries we will need to also retain those convential forces ]

From Yemen to Libya, revolt rolls forward. Not long ago, nations like Egypt were our vanguards, influencing at least some stability on the region. In the past three years, one regime after another has been toppled, and there is growing radicalization inside the governments of almost each of these former allies. That could, as Steyn suggests, leave America alone. [ I might add, as bad as these regimes were, their successors are worse, and virtually all have been toppled with the help of our idiot government. We have absolutely no business getting involved in any of these overthrows. We have no stragetic or national interest there ]

When I was a kid, there was a joke about the IQ test for dummies. One of the questions was: Who is buried in Grant’s Tomb? Another was: How long did the Hundred Years’ War last? This second question isn’t so easy because it turned out to be a series of conflicts between England and France that lasted from 1337 to 1453.

That is trivia. But there is another question we should all be asking: How long will America’s war with Islam last? Tragically, we are into the second decade of this conflict and there is no end in sight.

Divine Providence

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Have you ever had the feeling you were chosen by a higher power and driven to do something exceptional? Yeah, me neither.

That’s because it’s so uncommon. There is a name for this phenomenon. It’s called Divine Providence.

Divine Providence is not often revealed to mankind, but it does happen. There are times in our history when it seems God has reached down from the heavens and plucked a man (or men) from the masses and guided him to do what must be done in that moment in history.

I don’t believe George Washington just happened. He was chosen and guided through Divine Providence. No one else could have been that guy. As great a collection of minds as they were, not Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, etc. could have been the inspiration that was Washington. He was chosen because he was the one man that could take on the task and see it through.

The King of England, George III, the Mad King, begat George Washington. The King was a bad guy and the colonies needed a polar opposite to lead them out of bondage, as it were.

Washington was not perfect, but he was a good and just man. He was, by no coincidence, exactly what America needed at the time.

Abraham Lincoln was also that man this country needed at that exact time in our history.

James Buchanan, Lincoln’s presidential predecessor was arguably pro-slavery, at least so far as the American territories were concerned. He had many pro-slavery advocates in his cabinet.

Once more, Buchanan begat Lincoln. Many would argue Lincoln was not an anti-slavery advocate to start, but no one could make that claim, by the time he ran for reelection against George McClellan, who wished to end the war and compromise with the south allowing slavery to continue.

I contend that Lincoln was guided on the path of good and no other, at that time in history, could have accomplished the task of both preserving the Union and emancipation.

Carter begat Reagan. In the late 1970’s this country was floundering and leaderless. Carter was a weak administrator at best and America craved, no needed, a strong leader. Reagan was that man. He was a good man with strong ideals and not afraid to call out evil. He reminded us how great America was and how it could be again, that we were the last best hope of mankind and a beacon of freedom for others to emulate.

He was the man, guided by Divine Providence , to restore and renew America. No other of his time could have been that man.

And so do we stand at this moment in history with a clear choice, and Mitt Romney is the clear choice.

As many know, Romney was not my guy, as it were. He is not the “true conservative” we all think we need and as we would define a conservative.

What Mitt is, is a good man. I have concluded that a conservative policy wonk is not now what America needs, although, as an added bonus, we will get one in the V.P., Paul Ryan.

In every crucial moment in our history, a phoenix has risen from the ashes to pull us back from our path to self destruction and place us back on the path to good.

It’s as if God gives us a little rope and then pulls us back when we stray too far.

I’m no clairvoyant, but I think we might be living in an historic time. We may be witness to another Divine Providential event.

Evil gives way to good and Barack Obama and his administration of radicals are evil, maybe the worst in our history. They may not be “the Devil” evil, but evil in that they wish to shake the foundation of liberty and freedom established by our founders until it topples, in order to rebuild it in their own warped image of the “perfect” society.

It’s not evil to wish to change things, if done in the light, where all can see, understand and freely choose. The evil is in the covert way they’ve chosen to operate.

The mark of a good man is how good he is when no one is looking. Few people are as good as Romney when no one is looking.

We, at this moment in history, need a good and moral man. I believe, through Divine Providence, Mitt Romney has been chosen to be our standard bearer of good.

Do I wish that Mitt was not only good but more conservative? Yep, but I’ve come to gladly accept that he is not both. He is honest, moral and very hard working.

That’s what we need at this moment in history and we get to witness the history and hopefully be a part of it.

And Who are the Real Racists?

Twitter Explodes After Black Actress Endorses Romney as the ‘Only Choice for Your Future’

from:  at The Blaze

Actress Stacey Dash, who has starred in everything from the 90′s hit Clueless to CSI, prompted a firestorm on Twitter after publicly endorsing Republican nominee Mitt Romney, and then standing by her opinion.

“Vote for Romney. The only choice for your future. @mittromney @teamromney #mittromney #VOTE #voteromney,” Dash wrote on her official Twitter page, accompanied by a photo of herself with an American flag.

Not long after, presumed Obama supporters began insulting Dash for her opinion, saying she isn’t “black” enough, several even asking if the actress would just “kill herself.”

One man wrote: “This hurts but you a Romney lover and you slutting yourself to the white man only proves why no black man married u @REALStaceyDash.”

As news of Dash’s treatment spread, however, First Amendment-lovers nationwide began voicing their support for the actress using the hashtag #ISupportStaceyDash.

Twitchy captured some of the worst responses to Dash’s Romney endorsement (content warning):

Twitter Responds to Actress Stacey Dashs Endorsement of Republican Mitt Romney

(Photo: Twitter via Twitchy)

And here are a few more (content warning):

Twitter Responds to Actress Stacey Dashs Endorsement of Republican Mitt Romney

(Photo: Twitter via Twitchy)

But Dash was apparently undeterred by the cruel reaction, and sent a number of sarcastic responses to the worst offenders, wrote a tweet reminding that she is entitled to her own opinion, and– to top it off– re-tweeted a Romney campaign message.

“Women have had enough of @BarackObama’s disappointment. We need new leadership to get our economy growing again…” the re-tweeted message reads.

Here a few of the top #ISupportStaceyDash tweets:

Twitter Responds to Actress Stacey Dashs Endorsement of Republican Mitt Romney

(Photo: Twitter/#ISupportStaceyDash)

And a few more:

Twitter Responds to Actress Stacey Dashs Endorsement of Republican Mitt Romney

(Photo: Twitter/#ISupportStaceyDash)

One man summed it up as a choice between Republican Utah congressional nominee Mia Love and Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke.

#ISupportStaceyDash regardless of whether she gets a phone call form #Obama or not,” another wrote, highlighting the stark contrast between how quickly Fluke was propped up after being called a “slut” for advocating taxpayer-funded birth control, and how quickly Republican Stacey Dash was dragged through the mud for failing to support Obama in 2012.

I Now Support Barack, Because He Mad Cool, Yo

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Have you heard? Snoop Dogg is no longer Snoop Dogg. Now he’s Snoop Lion.

Snoop (Calvin Cordozar Broadus Jr. when he’s at home) announced the name change during a press conference in New York, recounting a sort of spiritual  awakening he had while he was in Jamaica to recording with Diplo (or is it Dipstick):

“I want to bury Snoop Dogg (not a bad idea), and become Snoop Lion. I  didn’t know that until I went to the temple, where the High Priest asked me what my name was, and I  said, ‘Snoop Dogg.’ And he looked me in  my eyes and said, ‘No more. You are the  light; you are the lion.’ From  that moment on, it’s like I had started to  understand why I was there. […] “I have always said I was Bob Marley  reincarnated. I feel I have always  been a Rastafari. I just didn’t have my  third eye open, but its wide  open right now.”

No doubt the guy was the High Priest of ganja-mon.

Seriously, now that Snoop has been blessed by a Rasta Priest, he should have much more political credibility. And Lions are revered far more than mere doggs. He’s like the King of the urban jungle.

So when Snoop Lion publishes a contemplative instagram concisely stating why he will not be voting for Mitt Romney, we know it is both thoughtful and well constructed.

Here is the Lion’s post. The DNC should consider adding it to their platform:

Now that the Lion is Rasta, I’m surprised he didn’t call Mitt a “Blood Clot”. He could transpose number 6 or 1o, since they are the same.

I have learned some from the above list. I had no idea that a black nigga is cooler than a white nigga. Thanks for heads up, Mr. Lion.

I do however, have to disagree with one point. From the look of both Snoop and Barack, it seems plain to me that neither could beat down anyone. It appears that a stiff wind could blow them over . Maybe that was just the Ganja talking. Inhaled courage.

Other than that, I think is a well thought out and intentioned piece.

After reading this rather compelling list, I think I’m going to change my position and support Barack. Anyone who has sniffed Beyonce has my vote. And whom, in their right mind, would vote for man with no hoes. I mean…come on!

A Smackdown

From: RedState

There was a surreal moment after the debate last night. On CNN, the polling went overwhelmingly for Mitt Romney among debate watchers. Basically two-thirds of the American public who watched the debate claimed Romney won. A majority claimed Romney was with them on taxes, the economy, healthcare, their views of government, etc. He dominated.

A CBS poll of undecided voters who watched the debate mirrored the CNN poll.

Suddenly the Democrats took to the airwaves and twitter to rail against the polls oversampling Republicans and being too heavily skewed, too instant to be meaningful, and clearly not an accurate statistical sample of anything.

About the same time Barack Obama’s campaign team was melting down on television, the campaign sent out an email that did not even mention the Presidential debate. It just wanted more money.

The debate was so bad for Barack Obama I expect Eric Holder to send Jim Lehrer to GTMO. Barack Obama suddenly agrees with Republicans on defunding PBS. Without his precious TelePrompTer to feed his Gollumesque addiction to its illuminated, precious words, the President fell flat. Instead of John Kerry for a debate partner, the President should have just gone through airport security a few times or embraced BOHICA as a debate preparation strategy.

Put it to you this way, within ten minutes of the debate ending, Jessica Yellin of CNN spoke with Stephanie Cutter of the Obama campaign. Ms. Cutter conceded up front that Mitt Romney won on both debate preparation and debate style. It went downhill from there. She began parroting talking points about the debate she herself released to Obama surrogate at sun up yesterday morning. She had nothing new to add.

Mitt Romney had substance, counterarguments for Barack Obama’s points, rebuttals, and a friendly manner. Barack Obama kept his head down at the podium and refused to make eye contact with Mitt Romney. This too is what Barack Obama did with the economy and Libya.

Barack Obama, at one point, interrupted Jim Lehrer and asked Lehrer to move on to a new topic. It was a brilliant metaphor for what Barack Obama did coming into office. He looked at the economy and decided to move on to Obamacare. His whole career has been one of passing the buck, shifting blame, and failing to take responsibility for tough challenges. He did the same last night.

For four years, Barack Obama has rarely been challenged and he handled it poorly last night. He was ill prepared, flustered easily, and came off as petulant. At some point we should expect the empty chair to ask Barack Obama to take a vacation day and let it debate instead.

I think the explanation for Obama’s performance is pretty simple. Gods in the cult of personality do not like to come off Olympus to be challenged by mere mortals.

There is an important point, however, for Republicans. This was one debate. This was not the election. Mitt Romney showed he can do it. But the campaign needs your help now more than ever. Every penny helps. I guarantee you we are about to see the media resurrect the “Obama is the underdog” theme and, in the meantime, look for most media polls to suddenly have a D+20 sample.

Mitt Romney did fantastic last night.