GBTV - Where the Truth Lives

Election Season 2014

And it has brought us to this trainwreck called ObamaCare and we have bankrupted our kids and grandkids!

We are now headed into the 2014 Election Season and common sense and conservatism are on the rise. Please stand-up and be counted!

Reading Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election is a great place to start!

The Founding Father's Real Reason for the Second Amendment

And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).

The Leaders Are Here... Palin, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Chaffetz....

T'S A WONDERFUL LIFE

Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???

Bloggers' Rights at EFF

SIGN THE PETITION TODAY...

Showing posts with label Dick Morris. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dick Morris. Show all posts

Friday, November 16, 2012

Why Mitt Lost-A View From The Trenches

by tom Whitmore at TPN – links and comments in italics added by AskMarion:

Some will say Mitt was not conservative enough, others will say his statement that he was “Extremely conservative” was a kiss of death and there are various and sundry claims in between. One fact remains, this year with exception of a few conservative challengers most notably Ted Cruz in Texas, conservatives did not do well in the challenge races. Richard Mourdock, Tommy Thompson and Todd Akin are examples. There is more to winning than simply being a conservative.

There is also the crowd that says the problem was in the messaging. Of course many of these folks are in the messaging business, biased opinions anyone? Sure Mitt could have explained some of his ideas and plans better; but then the President hasn’t explained anything except for all of the things the GOP would take from everybody.

So what really happened? It was a tactical failure of the party not so much a messaging or degree of conservatism failure.

Many Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters skewed the vote as they said they would. They were very active across the nation in local party, congressional district committee and state party committee elections securing many positions in the Quadrennial year reconstitution of party officers and delegate seats to the state and national conventions. This should have been evident as it was happening and the magnitude of severity recognized especially after experiences at state and local conventions and at the RNC convention in August.

It is a necessity to vote for delegates to state and national conventions in the Quadrennial year, but to elect new party leadership just months before the Presidential cycle elections as is the case with many states like Virginia; is itself an invitation to disaster. At very least an invitation to disruption as the Ron Paul supporters provided at the National Convention. In Virginia for example, AG Ken Cuccinelli had a slate of preferred candidates for the Republican Party of Virginia State Central Committee and delegates to the RNC Convention that leaned heavily toward Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters. That slate did remarkably well in the District convention elections, but then many of them went on to provide great embarrassment to the Republican Party at the national convention, with the help of other Libertarian and Paul supporters from other states.

RNC & State Victory programs ran top down programs and ignored the needs of grassroots activists as they have in the past few elections. Collateral materials were refused them for efforts outside of the Victory program, even for 20-30 year party stalwarts. Collateral materials were late or in short supply even for the Victory program. Again as in 2008 there was mass confusion between presidential campaign staff, RNC staff and state party staffs in determining who had what responsibilities. Some of the short supply and logistical confusion was a result of the short 2 month campaign period due to a late August RNC Convention.

Obama started actively campaigning in the streets in January, giving him effectively an 8 month head start. The RNC has done conventions as early as July, why not in this all important year buy as much time for a concerted effort as possible?

The GOP did not go toe to toe with the Obama grassroots machine by ignoring Texting and largely not using other Social media effectively. Again Obama humbled the GOP with his use of the text and the tweet.

In addition Romney and the GOP ignored the largest and a fast growing voter block in America, the Hispanic vote. This is a community that shares the values and principles of the GOP right down the line, yet a large majority vote Democrat, because there has been no effective outreach to them. The GOP’s efforts this year amounted to little more than window dressing.

I think the RNC, Romney campaign, many state and local committees and many Congressional campaigns believed Obama was so bad he couldn’t possibly win reelection. Even Mitt admitted that he had only prepared a victory speech! As a result they did not put as much effort into the election as was required. Couple this with the rejection of any grassroots efforts that ran outside of the Victory operation and you had an inevitable disaster.

Obama’s folks knew that he looked bad, so they went to work in earnest as early as January while our nominating process was still going on, not to mention how brutal the GOP primary fight was. And Team Obama was smart, working under the radar and using paid help to knock doors and phone bank. Voter registration and outreach into the Hispanic community were top priorities. There were many allegations of voter fraud but they probably won’t amount to enough to change the outcome, at least not of the presidential election… but we need to pursue each and every allocation just in case the ever growing reports really are more massive than expected', plus there could be downline elections affected positively by those recounts, like Allen West in Florida.  And just like with the grassroots secession movements presently going on; both remind the White House and others that the American people are paying attention.

There you have it; there is no magic bullet to fix the problem facing the GOP. They have to realize they must work harder and smarter, not take their base for granted and always be wary of the Libertarians; too many of them have recently shown they are only in it to support their candidates and endorsees or to otherwise skew things for the GOP. And for heaven’s sake do not ignore the Latino vote!

Execution, tactics and logistics were key determinants in the loss. Messaging and candidates records played a lesser role. Obama’s win was proof of that, if the electorate was paying attention to the message or the candidates records, no way could Obama win reelection. The dumbing down of our population and the manipulation of the news by the left leaning media are certainly two large components in that arena.

Most voters are predisposed to vote one way or the other. Certainly there are some independent swing voters that need cajoling and will respond to a strong articulate message, but the winning game changer is who can do the best job to energize, pump up and rally their base to go to the polls on E-day. 3-million less conservatives turned out to vote for Mitt Romney than they did for John McCain, enough to have made the difference, and Sarah Palin could certainly have been responsible for the enthusiasm of those 3-million turning out! Pundit, Pollster and former Bill Clinton Advisor Dick Morris says the real reason Romney didn’t win is that the whites who supported Romney didn't turn out to vote.  If that is the case, we can only shake our heads!!

If the GOP wants to win in the future they are going to have to adjust their tactical plan and learn to listen to and support the GOP grassroots activists, after all they are the feet in the street, the voice on the phones and the keys to voter turnout.

Success is not measured by numbers of attempted contacts it is measured by the votes on Election Day that resulted from live in person contacts.

To ignore the grassroots and the base is to accept defeat.

Bobby Jindal, who is set to become chairman of the Republican Governors Association, has called on the party to reshape its tone when presenting ideas, especially to constituencies that traditionally vote Democratic. “We already have one liberal party”, he said,  “We don’t need another one.  We need to change the delivery or our message and outreach!”

Related:

Romney Did Not Lose

The New, And Worse, Watergate 

Amnesty won’t magically make Hispanics more Republican

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Final Election Predictions, Featuring Weekend Monkey

JoshuaPundit:

Well this is where the pedal hits the metal as they say. It's time for me to make my final election predictions, along with the able assistance of Joshua Pundit's political guru, ace handicapper and former Democrat presidential candidate Weekend Monkey.

RM: Hello Monkey, and thanks for joining us.

WM: Your pleasure, I'm sure Rob. Howdy Doody, primates!

RM: @##!#. Always the inflated ego...

WM: Hee hee hee! Lemme tell ya, I'm feeling good about tomorrow!

RM: Let me guess. I know you've been campaigning for Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts... I take it you favor her chances tomorrow.

WM: Oh, you betcha Rob. And that translates into a lot of shekels for yours truly in election action, plus a high level staff position in DC when she gets in.

RM: I should have known. Anyway, you want to do the Senate first or the presidential race?

WM: Let's start at the top and work down.

RM: OK, fire away.

WM: It's really too close to call, but I see it leaning towards President Obama narrowly winning a second term..probably after some controversy among the primates:

scenario_2.jpg
It's really pretty simple. I see Romney the Robot narrowly getting frozen out of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. And I mean narrowly. If even one state changes, it could go the other way. Let's call it 5-3 Obama.

Ohio is gonna be the poop storm, with a lotta weirdness in Cuyoga and Mahoning Counties that could leave us hanging on the branch for a long time, but in the end it's gonna come down to Ohio. If that goes Obama's way, he wins.Otherwise, Romney the Robot gets in.

RM: So you don't see Romney taking either Pennsylvania or Wisconsin?

WM: Y'know, anything's possible, But if I gotta make a call, I say Obama takes it overall. Especially Ohio, because a lot of the primates have jobs still, unemployment's relatively low, you got the unions and the Cleavland Machine. And they're all organized because of Governor Kasich trying to pull a Scott Walker on the public employee unions and getting his pee pee slapped. (The RNC’s Reince Priebus, from Wisconsin, says the polls were showing Walker down by 7 in the recall election and he won in a cake walk.  He also said that the GOPS ground game for Wisconsin is double what it was in 2004 and 2008… so the Monkey maybe off here!).

RM: Speaking of governors, what did you think of Chris Christie cozying up to Obama and dissing Romney, essentially telling him he wasn't welcome in Jersey to tour the storm areas?

WM: Ah hee hee hee! I got a real laugh outta that! Look, it's simple. Lardass is ticked off because he didn't run, he's looking at 2016 and the only way that opens up for him is if Romney the Robot loses. Simple as that.

RM: Makes sense. I never liked him anyway. The House?

WM: I say it stays ReThug, with maybe 3-5 seats changing hands.

RM: The Senate?

WM: Hee hee! Worst case, my Democrats will probably lose Virginia, North Dakota, Nebraska, Montana. They'll make pickups in Massachusetts and Maine, where the indy guy King will caucus with us Donkeys.Maybe another pickup in Indiana, depending on turnout.And we'll keep Florida.Probably Missouri too.

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are wild cards. If they go Democrat like I think they will, we get those too. They might end up splitting, one apiece.

The ReThugs make pickups in Virginia, North Dakota, Montana and Nebraska. They'll keep Arizona and Nevada, maybe Indiana.They lose Massachusetts and Maine. They might get either Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, depending.

Bottom line? Including two indies, my Democrats end up with 49 seats maybe 50-51 if we get Indiana and either Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. The ReThugs end up with 49, 48 if they lose Indiana.To get control of the senate, they'd have to hang on to Indiana somehow and get both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, or maybe Missouri which I don't see happening at all.

RM: You predicted a divided Senate before.

WM: Yup. It could shake out that way. OK, whaddya got?

RM: I see Romney winning.

WM: Cheez, what a surprise!

RM: Hey now...

WM: Alright, alright.

RM: Here's how I see it, but just like with your map, mine is subject to some changes..it really is a pretty close race to predict.

scenario_3.jpg
With the economy the way it is, and the other issues of Obama's presidency, I see Romney taking Virginia, Florida, Colorado and North Carolina pretty decisively. I also think he's going to take two of the Big Four in the Midwest, most likely Ohio and Wisconsin, although the last polls I saw that meant anything show Pennsylvania and Michigan tied up. I think there's a very good chance that Ohio and Pennsylvania might switch columns, with Romney taking the Keystone State and Obama getting Ohio by a narrow margin because of the factors you mentioned.Especially with Obama's EPA already salivating publicly at crippling coal for good.

WM: You see Romney taking Iowa and New Hampshire?

RM: Yeah, but with this scenario if he loses them both he still wins.

WM: Yeah, I can see that.You better hope he takes Colorado then,,,,

RM: I think he will. For what it's worth I agree with you Monkey, it's going to come down to the Big Four in the Midwest.Obama has to take both Pennsylvania and Ohio to win.
WM: You see the Elephants keeping the House?

RM: Of course, Monkey. With a maximum loss of 3-5 seats. Which means that even if you're right and Obama does get re-elected, Darrel Issa still has subpoena powers and Obama might wish he lost tomorrow in a couple of years.

WM: Ouchie! You got a point there!

RM: Here's how I see the Senate. OK, the Dems lose Virginia, North Dakota, Montana and Nebraska. I personally think there's an excellent chance of one or two more GOP pickups in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Maybe Florida if Romney wins decisively enough. I think Tammy Baldwin's lunatic fringe lefty ideas don't play well in the Badger State anywhere outside Madison and Dane County, and there's also the Catholic vote to consider in both PA and Wisconsin. And with Paul Ryan on the ticket, Scott Walker surviving the recall and Wisconsin being RNC head Preibus' home state, I think it's looking pretty good for Romney and for Tommy Thompson.The GOP hangs on to Arizona and Nevada.

The Republicans probably lose Massachusetts and definitely lose Maine. And probably one of either Missouri or Indiana, although I think Mourdock has a shot at surviving in Indiana. So that puts us at between 49 and 52 seats for the GOP, depending on what happens in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Missouri and Indiana.

I pretty much see the Democrats' scenario the same way you do, including the two indies. I'd like to think the people of Massachusetts have more brains than to put someone like Elizabeth Warren in the Senate -

WM: HEY!

RM: Nothing personal Monkey.

WM: Besides, it is Massachusetts....

RM: You got that right. Anyway, I also see a split senate as a real possibility. So there it is...

WM: I gotta tell you something Rob...you know that video of that little primate crying and saying she was tired of Bronco Bama and Mitt Romney? I feel the same way. I wanna get this thing over with.

RM: Me too Monkey. I think a lot of people feel that way. Two years for a political campaign is just to damned long, and I'll be relieved when it's over and done with. You ever think of running for something again?

WM: You know me Rob. I'm a political animal and I see my opportunities and take 'em. Hee hee!

RM: Spoken like a Democrat, Monkey. Thanks for swinging by.

WM: See ya later Rob. Smell Ya later, Primates.

Weekend Monkey was a Democratic candidate for president in 2008 and is JoshuaPundit's political Guru. He can be reached at wendmonkey@yahoo.com

Related:

Listening to the pundits, most say it is too close to call and it could go one of two ways… a landslide for Romney or a squeaker to the end, late into the night.  Dick Morris, Charles Krauthammer, Rush Limbaugh, and Karl Rove predict that it will be a Romney-Ryan win.  Dick Morris feels it will be a landslide for Romney because he claims pollsters are oversampling Democrats and says a poll that claims Obama is up 3, really means Romney is winning by 4. Claiming that "Ohio is overrated... Romney can lose the state and still win the election."

Charles Krauthammer Outlines Romney's Three Paths To Victory

Presidential paths: How Romney, Obama could win

Dick Morris Stands by Romney Landslide Prediction

Picking a U.S. President… in 2012… Now Just One Day Away From a New Start

‘Cooling Out’ the Voters

The Council Has Spoken!! Watcher’s Council Winners for 11.02.12

Have You Heard About ‘Spigot Cities’ That May Pump Votes to Obama?

The Choice

Krauthammer kicks Christie

Voter fraud complaints may be directed to any of the local U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the local FBI offices or the Public Integrity Section (202-514-1412).

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Lighten Up Eeyore, The Pollsters Don't Even Agree With Each Other

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

TPN: Sadly, this obsession over what has to be the most misunderstood science in all of American life has become a ritual, with a life all its own. So, now the depression is full bore, and even people on the Republican side are beginning to show signs of depression, despite all of our solid promises to ourselves and each other that this year, we would not fall for this lunacy, no matter what. If you really believe that the worst President in our Nation's history, the man who's policy of appeasement has seen a quarter of our embassies around the world set ablaze, the man who's domestic policies have shut down all domestic energy production on federal lands, the man who's economic policies have made him the first President since Herbert Hoover to see less Americans working after a full term in office than on the day he was sworn into office, will win the election by 8 to 10 points, then I happen to be in possession of the Brooklyn Bridge, and would be willing to sell.

What is most perplexing to me about the devotion to the polls is this. If the polls were at all accurate, they would be very close to delivering us the same numbers. If that were the case, nobody would be logging onto the Real Clear Politics website in order to see what the daily average of all the polls had to say about the daily average of all polls where every poll should be mirroring the daily average.

Consider this also, after every election cycle, all of the polls are ranked in accuracy, and surprisingly, none of the polls being quoted anywhere by anyone are ever close to the top of that list. Rasmussen and Zogby will typically rank 1 and 2, and neither will be discussed on the evening news. We'll discuss both of these companies later, and why they get closer than the other more famous members of the polling community.

What is a better predictor of election results is history, and in that spirit, Dick Morris has an analysis that is probably much more predictive than anything you'll see in the polls. In his article, Dick Morris combines an historical perspective with the polling results to give us what I believe to be one of the best predictive analyses available

So here’s where the race really stands today based on Rasmussen’s polling:

• Romney leads decisively in all states McCain carried (173 electoral votes).
• Romney is more than ten points ahead in Indiana – which Obama carried. (11 electoral votes)
• Romney leads Obama in the following states the president carried in 2008: Iowa (44-47) North Carolina (45-51), Colorado (45-47), and New Hampshire (45-48).

He’ll probably win them all. (34 electoral votes).


This comes to 218 of the 270 Romney needs. But…

• Obama is below 50% of the vote in a handful of key swing states and leads Romney by razor thin margins in each one. All these states will go for Romney unless and until Obama can show polling support of 50% of the vote:
• Obama leads in Ohio (47-46) and Virginia (49-48) by only 1 point (31 electoral votes)
• Obama leads in Florida (48-46) and Nevada (47-45) by only 2 points (35 electoral votes)
If Romney carries Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, he wins. And other states are in play.
• Obama leads in Wisconsin (49-46) by only 3 points (10 electoral votes)
• Obama’s lead in Michigan is down to four points according to a recent statewide poll
• Obama is only getting 51% of the vote in Pennsylvania and 53% in New Jersey. And don’t count out New Mexico.
It would be accurate to describe the race now as tied. But Romney has the edge because:
• The incumbent is under 50% in key states and nationally. He will probably lose any state where he is below 50% of the vote.
• The Republican enthusiasm and likelihood of voting is higher
• The GOP field organization is better.
That’s the real state of play today.


When a pollster conducts his interviews, he does not contact only the number of people reported in the headline. They will usually contact 3 to 4 times that number of people. You will also not see the actual breakdown of how people responded in the headline. What you see, his finished product, will be a weighted average based on what the pollster feels will be the demographic distribution of who will ultimately vote, in other words, his guess.

Typically, when interviews are conducted, a voting model of demographic distribution exists before hand. A certain percentage of women, men, breakdowns by age, race, religion, party affiliation, etc. Then percentages of how each demographic would vote is the information gleaned from the polling interviews. For instance, pretty much all of the pollsters agree today that Barack Obama would win 85% of the democrats who voted, and Mitt Romney would likely garner 86% of the Republicans who voted. What is in dispute is how the voting demographic will break down. How many 18 to 21 year old kids this time? Four years ago, that demographic turned out huge for Barack Obama, now that 50% of them have remained unemployed for the entirety of Barack Obama's term in office, and they are 4 years older, will they turn out in the same force? Will today's crop of 18 to 21 year old voters vote in similar fashion as their counterparts from 4 years ago? Typically, this demographic has an abhorrent track record when it comes to voting.
What you have at the end of the day is this. Polls are only going to be as accurate as their predictions as to what the demographic make up of the actual voting sample turns out to be. What PPP, Marist, Quinipiac, USA Today, are telling us with their samples is that the voting make up this year will look exactly as the make up looked in 2008. In 2008, Goerge W. Bush was despised almost universally, albeit unjustly, and the Democrats in our country were hyped up as never before for their man Barack Obama. He was viewed as somewhat of a messianic figure during the height of the hopety change fervor that had gripped the nation's dopes. My fellow citizens were chanting, in a scene that came straight out of 1930's Germany. What these polls are telling us, is that America is still in that mood today.

Think about this for one moment. Compare the size of the crowds traveling to see Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Consider the difference in size of the Tea Party crowds to the faked inhabited tents of the Occupests. Twice since the convention, and once during it, Barack Obama was forced to change venues to something smaller due to a lack of attendance.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen has the best solution to the party id problem. He weights his polls to reflect the unweighted party identification of the previous three weeks, so he has a dynamic model which adjusts for sampling error but still takes account of gradual changes in the electorate’s partisan preferences.


First off, Rasmussen asks the question up front, do you plan on voting. This alone gives his poll an accuracy that the others lack. Registered voter polls include a bias towards the demographics who typically do not vote. Next, Rasmussen uses a different interview process to gain some understanding of what this year's model will actually resemble, without relying on data from 4 years ago. One of the things Rasmussen has found, through polling independent of the question of who will we be voting for, is that people who self identify as Republican is at an all time high. People who self identify as Democrat is at a near historic low. This does not exactly lead one to the conclusion that 2008's record turnout of every Democrat demographic feels that same enthusiasm today, and indeed feels it to an even greater degree.


In the case of Zogby this year, kudos for changing methodology to reflect changes in the level of technology available to citizens. My fear is that he does not yet have a handle of how to accurately utilize his new methodology. Zogby has been extremely quiet this election cycle, and now we all know why. Rather than conducting phone interviews, John Zogby and his company conducted on line interviews. I have seen far too many of these types of polls skewed purposefully, not by the polling companies, but by spammers with an agenda finding holes in the programming sufficient to deliver a result desired. the perfect examples of this were highlighted in 2008, when any online poll of the Republican Primary race showed Ron Paul with support ranging from 70% to 80% of any sample, while he consistently garnered only 2% of the actual vote. I am not saying that Zogby has not found a way to combat this, but his only poll to date this year seems to be somewhat of an outlier, even when compared to the others. I wish John Zogby the best in getting a handle on his new methodology, if successful, it should be a quantum leap in the art.

At this point during the election of 1980, Jimmy Carter supposedly had an 8 point lead over Ronald Reagan. I realize that Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan, but neither is Barack Obama a Jimmy Carter. I am not one of those people who will jump up and down to swear that this is some nefarious plot on the part of all things liberal. I just believe the pollsters to be dead wrong, and that would not make the first time either. In 2004, NBC announced at about noon on election day that our 44th President would be John Kerry, based on their exit polls, which had the benefit of an accurate voting sample.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Related:

The Reality of 2012 Voter Turnout: The White Voter

Romney Double Digit Lead?

‘Unskewed’ polls show nearly 8-point Romney lead

Race beginning to look a lot like 1980? What might Ronald Reagan’s victory path mean?

Calling All Concerned Americans to Stand-Up

Does Obama expect to lose? – Secret retirement plans

A Must Watch Before Voting…

Must Reads Before Election 2012

Thursday, July 5, 2012

Hillary & Barack will BAN GUNS during the UN GUN TREATY on JULY 27, 2012!!!!

Ladies and Gentlemen, wake-up, stand-up, speak-up and prepare to arm yourselves!


MUST LISTEN TO DICK, FORMER CLINTON ADVISOR, HERE VIDEO!!!!

Without any national debate -- and after secret negotiations -- Obama is going to sign the Arms Trade Treaty  which will lead to UN imposed gun control

Obama Told to Back Off U.N. Gun Treaty Over 100 members of Congress appear to share the concerns of a former Army general who has sounded the alarm over efforts by the Obama Administration to push through the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT

THE NEW WORLD DISORDER

NRA warns of U.N. gun control

U.S. participating in upcoming small-arms conference JULY 2-27 2012 (see below)

Published: 06/16/2006 at 1:00 AM

clip_image001
Wayne LaPierre (NRA)

An American delegation will participate in a controversial United Nations small-arms conference criticized by Second Amendment advocates as a threat to U.S. gun ownership.

The U.N. Small Arms Review Conference will meet in New York City June 26 to July 7 to discuss illegal trafficking in arms, “ineffective national controls” and related issues.

The U.N.’s disarmament effort features a program in which it buys back weapons in nations torn by civil strife. But National Rifle Association Vice President Wayne LaPierre insists the U.N. is concerned about more than illicit arms in African hot spots. He says the global body wants the firearms of American citizens – and much more.

“So, after we are disarmed, the U.N. wants us demobilized and reintegrated,” says the NRA’s executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, according to the Economist magazine. “I can hear it now: ‘Step right this way for your reprogramming, sir. Once we confiscate your guns, we can demobilize your aggressive instincts and reintegrate you into civil society.’ No thanks.”

LaPierre sees the U.N. as a club of governments, some of which want to “strip opposition forces of the means to challenge their authority.”

Noting that during the 20th century, governments murdered 169 million people in various parts of the world, the NRA leader says individual gun ownership is the “ultimate protection against tyranny.”

Although an effort by the U.N. to control Americans’ guns seems far-fetched and improbable to some, as WorldNetDaily has reported in a major investigation, that plan has its roots in the early 1960s with a 20-page State Department pamphlet titled “Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.”

LaPierre, in his book “The Global War on Your Guns: Inside the UN Plan to Destroy the Bill of Rights,” claims a 1997 land-mine treaty molded the U.N.’s new anti-gun strategy; that the U.N. funnels Americans’ tax dollars to anti-gun member nations; that U.S. gun-control advocates are investing in the U.N.’s activities; and that even the most extreme U.N. gun laws can be enforced on Americans, without the benefit of a new treaty.

As WorldNetDaily reported, actor Michael Douglas – who for many years has been designated by the United Nations as a “U.N. peace messenger” – is backing the conference.

The U.S. has provided more than $27 million to help various nations destroy surplus stockpiles of small arms and light weapons and offers regular technical assistance, according to the State Department.

A June 9 State Department fact sheet says, “Given the close links between terrorism, organized crime and drug trafficking, the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons has the potential to affect any country in the world at any time.”

The State Department urges “focused efforts to identify and curb the sources and methods of the illicit trade via robust export controls, law enforcement measures, and efforts to expeditiously destroy excess stocks and safeguard legitimate stocks from theft or illegal transfer.”

UN firearms conference scheduled

 

clip_image002

Michael McGuire

United Nations Examiner

 

A United Nations conference is set for July 2-27 to hammer out details of a global treaty to control conventional firearms, the UN said Wednesday.

Called the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, delegates in New York will try to reach agreement on what the UN calls "the most important initiative ever regarding conventional arms regulation within the United Nations. A robust arms trade treaty can make a difference for millions of people confronted with insecurity, deprivation and fear."

A 2011 UN General Assembly resolution marked for limited distribution described the goal of the conference to be "General and complete disarmament: towards an arms trade treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms."

A 2010 resolution said the UN said it supports:

  • the right of all States to manufacture, import, export, transfer and retain conventional arms for self-defense and security needs and in order to participate in peace support operations; and
  • the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory.

UN officials deny they are targeting private ownership of firearms.

"The UN is not pursuing a global treaty to ban gun ownership by civilians," the UN said. "Member States are committed to tightening controls over the international import, export and transfers of conventional arms, because without such controls it is easier for weapons to be diverted from the legal trade into the illegal market, and into the hands of terrorists, drug traffickers and criminal cartels."

Related: Obama Seeks US Congressional Ratification of UN Global Gun Control Treaty

"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil;  God will not hold us guiltless.

Not to  speak is to speak.  Not to act is to act."  Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Friday, May 18, 2012

Morris: Romney To Win Undecideds

By DICK MORRIS  -  Published on TheHill.com on May 15, 2012

From May 5-11, 2012, I conducted a survey of 6,000 likely voters. On such a mammoth sample, the margin of error is less than 1 percent. I found that Romney has amassed a sizable lead over Obama of 51-42, far in excess of what published polling and surveys of registered -- as opposed to likely -- voters are indicating.

If Romney were to win 51 percent of the vote, the election would, of course, be very close. But if he could hold Obama to 42 percent, it would be a landslide. So the obvious question is how Romney should go about winning the voters in between.

To answer this question, I drilled down in my sample to these undecided voters, none of whom voted for Romney in the survey. I added to their ranks those who voted for Obama but indicated that they only "somewhat" approved of his performance in office. This left me with a sample of 1,500 likely voters who are in play. The data in this column reflects their views. If Romney can win a quarter or a third of their votes, he will win by a landslide margin of 10 points.

On the economy, 46 percent of these swing voters do not believe that there is any recovery. Twenty-three percent say the economy is the same as when Obama took office and an additional 23 percent say it is worse. Thirty-nine percent say the jobs situation has not improved. Twenty-five percent say it is the same and 14 percent say it is worse. And 37 percent agree with the statement that "if we look around, there isn't real evidence that we are actually making progress."

Specifically, swing voters do not believe that the unemployment rate drop Obama heralds is real. Forty-nine percent agree that "the only reason it goes down is that each month more people give up even looking for work."

So Obama's claims that we are climbing out of the recession fall short with almost half of the swing vote. Indeed, 31 percent of swing voters say that "Obama's policies have made the recession worse."

About a third of swing voters squarely blame Obama's borrowing and spending as the culprit for the failure of the economy. Thirty-six percent agree that "the deficit and debt Obama's program caused did more harm that the spending did good. His cure was worse than the disease."

Forty-four percent of swing voters believe that "if we cut government spending and borrowing, we could recover much more quickly."

A third of swing voters -- 31 percent -- reject the president's argument that "if it were not for Obama's policies, things might have been even worse."

Finally, 44 percent of swing voters agree that "if we reelect Obama, he'll just do more of the same."

Romney has the ability to slice off a third of the undecided swing voters by way of a major attack on the economy, thereby lifting him well above the 50 percent threshold. Swing voters:

• Challenge Obama's assertion that we are recovering and that unemployment is dropping.
• Lay the blame for the economic stagnation on his "spending and borrowing" and suggest that with less of each, things would improve much more quickly.
• Believe that "his cure is worse than the disease" in that "the borrowing has done more harm than the spending did good."
• Are convinced that if we reelect Obama, we have only more spending and borrowing to look forward to and that the results will be the same.

Will Romney exploit the vulnerabilities this poll suggests? Only time will tell.

"It's a Chain of Lie After Lie After Lie"
What if the financial crisis wasn't an accident? That experts have PROOF regarding an elaborate scheme dating back to Sept. 18, 2008?… Dick Morris

Morris, a former adviser to Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Clinton, is the author of Outrage, Fleeced, Catastrophe and 2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan.  Revolt!: How To Defeat Obama and Repeal His Socialist Programs — A Patriot’s Guide and his latest book:  Screwed!: How Foreign Countries Are Ripping America Off and Plundering Our Economy-and How Our Leaders Help Them Do It  See: dickmorris.com.

Related:

Game On:  Two Front War

Defining America’s Future Event

Restoring Love Event – What Is It?

Interested in Fighting the Nanny State With Lemonade, Delicious Pies… and Hugs?  Beck Will Tell You How

Houston: Lemonade Day to Highlight Project Row Houses for Second Year

Saturday, May 12, 2012

American Freedom – Chinese Style?

A Chinese Group Plans To Construct A 200 Acre 

A Chinese group known as "Sino-Michigan Properties LLC" has bought up 200 acres of land near the town of Milan, Michigan.  Their plan is to construct a "China City" with artificial lakes, a Chinese cultural center and hundreds of housing units for Chinese citizens.  Essentially, it would be a little slice of communist China dropped right into the heartland of America.  This "China City" would be located about 40 minutes from both Detroit and Toledo, and it would be marketed to Chinese business people that want to start businesses in the United States.  Unfortunately, this is not just an isolated incident.  In fact, Chinese companies have been buying up land and businesses all over the country in recent years.  There has even been talk of establishing "special economic zones" inside the United States modeled after the Chinese city of Shenzhen.  It was inevitable that the Chinese were going to do something with the trillions of dollars that they have made flooding our shores with cheap products.  Now they are rapidly buying up pieces of America, and many of our politicians are welcoming them with open arms.

The town of Milan, Michigan is a small farming community of only about 6,000 people, but big changes are coming their way.  The following is from a recent Dayton Daily News article about this new project....

A group of mainland Chinese known as Sino-Michigan Properties LLC paid $1.9 million for 200 acres of farmland on Milan city limits in purchases this year and in 2011, according to local officials and property records.

Unfortunately, the goal does not appear to be to integrate this new "city" into the existing community in and around Milan.

Rather, it appears that all of the new housing will be sold to people coming over from China.  According to the Milan News Leader newspaper, the new housing units "would be marketed to Chinese business people who want to start companies in the United States".

In essence, we would be looking at a new Chinese city right in the middle of Michigan.

Doug Smith, senior vice president for business and community development for the Michigan Economic Development Corp., recently said the following about what the Chinese group plans to do....

"It’s a group that wants to build a China city, starting with housing over there in Milan"

Milan is not far from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, which is a very popular destination for Chinese students.  Apparently that is one reason why Milan was chosen.

This new project would be a Chinese community built by Chinese and specifically designed for Chinese.

But isn't this supposed to be America?

Fortunately, the project does not have final approval yet.  It still must be approved by the two townships outside of Milan where the land is located.

For some reason, the Chinese seem to be particularly interested in this area of the country.

For example, a different Chinese investment group has been busy buying up chunks of real estate over in nearby Toledo, Ohio.  The following is from an article in the Toledo Blade on May 26th, 2011....

Dashing Pacific Group Ltd., which has already purchased the nearby Docks restaurant complex for $2.15 million, put its $3.8 million offer to buy the southern 69 acres at the Marina District in East Toledo back on the table for approval by Toledo City Council. Additionally, Dashing Pacific Chairman Yuan Xiaohong, in a letter signed in Hangzhou, said the firm wants a two-year option to buy the decommissioned Toledo Edison power plant property on the site.

So should we be alarmed that the Chinese are buying up pieces of America?

Well, if they simply wanted to enjoy living in America and wanted to integrate into the wider community that would be one thing.

But it is another thing altogether to start dropping slices of communist China inside of U.S. territory.

In a previous article entitled "China Wants To Construct A 50 Square Mile Self-Sustaining City South Of Boise, Idaho", I discussed a potential deal that Sinomach (a company controlled by the Chinese government) was exploring with the government of Idaho.  The following is a description of that potential project from an article in the Idaho Statesman....

A Chinese national company is interested in developing a 10,000- to 30,000-acre technology zone for industry, retail centers and homes south of the Boise Airport.

There was talk that this "technology zone" would be modeled after the "special economic zones" that have been developed in China.  The city of Shenzhen is perhaps the most famous example of this.

Fortunately that deal appears to have stalled, but other mammoth deals have been moving forward in other parts of the country.

For example, the Chinese have been very busy gobbling up oil and gas fields.  The following is a quote from a local Texas news source about a deal that a company owned by the Chinese government did with Chesapeake Energy down in Texas....

State-owned Chinese energy giant CNOOC is buying a multibillion-dollar stake in 600,000 acres of South Texas oil and gas fields, potentially testing the political waters for further expansion into U.S. energy reserves.

With the announcement Monday that it would pay up to $2.2 billion for a one-third stake in Chesapeake Energy assets, CNOOC lays claim to a share of properties that eventually could produce up to half a million barrels a day of oil equivalent.

You can read more about that particular deal right here.

So is it really a good idea to be allowing the Chinese to buy up our precious energy resources?

The answer to that question is obvious.

Sadly, the examples noted above are not isolated incidents.  The truth is that the Chinese have been snapping up real estate and business assets all over America as a recent Forbes article explained....

According to a recent report in the New York Times, investors from China are “snapping up luxury apartments” and are planning to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on commercial and residential projects like Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn. Chinese companies also have signed major leases at the Empire State Building and at 1 World Trade Center, the report said.

So get ready - the Chinese are buying up U.S. land and they are moving in whether you like it or not.

So what will the long-term consequences be of allowing a communist superpower to buy up large sections of America?

That is a very good question.

Fed clears China's first US bank takeover

Yahoo ^ |Wednesday, May 09, 2012 6:33:39 PM · by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost · 18 replies

The United States on Wednesday opened its banking market to ICBC, China's biggest bank, for the first time clearing a takeover of a US bank by a Chinese state-controlled company. Just days after high-level US-China economic talks in Beijing, the Federal Reserve approved an application from Industrial and Commercial Bank of China to buy a majority stake in the US subsidiary of Bank of East Asia. The transaction will make ICBC the first Chinese state-controlled bank to acquire retail bank branches in the United States. ICBC has been the most aggressive of China's "big four" banks in expanding overseas. According...

 China & the Other Central Banks Are Buying Gold-Ranting Andy Hoffman--09.May.2012

The Financial Survival Network ^ | 05/09/2012 | Kerry Lutz  -  Listen to the Interview Here - http://financialsurvivalnetwork.com/2012/05/the-people-have-spoken/

www.FinancialSurvivalNetwork.com presents: "Ranting" Andy Hoffman gives us the update on the latest precious metals slam down; the reasons to own gold and silver couldn't be stronger. If the prices stay down this low, don't be surprised to witness a major flood of buying. We're also getting into the Indian Wedding Season, which will result in increased demand along with massive sovereign central bank purchases. This is worse than 2008, and banks are blowing up all over Europe. Spain has just bailed out its third largest bank. Who's going to bail out Spain? Greece is planning to reneg on its debt....

World Affairs Brief

Both Republican and Democratic administrations have been supplying the Chinese with high technology weapons systems for years, knowing that they, in turn, are supplying other enemies (Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea) as well. Both Russia and China continue to protest against any US anti-ballistic missile system, even though such systems are purely defensive. It doesn't take a genius to understand that ABM systems only threaten someone who intends to launch ballistic missiles someday.

"The US supplying Chinese with US high tech weapons systems?”

Note: He went into personal details not shown here, of experiences when as a person holding security classification, in U.S. weapons development, how they were ordered to allow Chinese military officers go over the details of secret projects they were working on !!

 Shocking News: China Sells Energy Pills Made From Baby Flesh

Customs officials in South Korea have uncovered a horrifying reality coming from China. Since last August, the Koreans have confiscated over 17,000 "energy pills" that were made from the dried flesh of babies. The rest of the nauseating details can be found HERE.

China is exporting pills made from dried and pulverized human baby flesh. [They are hyped as a medicinal cure-all.] DailyMail 2012 May 7 (Cached)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2140702/South-Korea-customs-officials-thousands-pills-filled-powdered-human-baby-flesh.html#ixzz1uDZvdZaW

 Soy-Crop Bust Spurs China to Drain U.S. Bins: Commodities

 China Has Hacked Our Electric Power Grid: Read About It In Screwed!
By DICK MORRIS  -  Published on DickMorris.com on May 10, 2012

In our new book Screwed!, we report that almost unnoticed and with no threat of retaliation, China has likely hacked into the United States electric grid, potentially giving it the ability to paralyze our economy and our nation by tapping a few keys on a computer. (This is an ad by Dick Morris for his book… but the book is well worth reading.  He covers a lot of important topics in great detail that others are ignoring!)

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Bush's anti-terrorism coordinator Richard Clarke reports that "in 2009, the control systems for the U.S. electric power grid [were] hacked and secret openings created so that the attacker could get back in with ease.  One expert noted that the hackers "left behind software that could be used to cause disruptions or even shut down the system."

While we cannot confirm that it was China that did the hacking, it is the only country with the technical expertise in hacking to have accomplished it.

Click Here to order a copy of Dick and Eileen's new book, SCREWED!

What were the hackers after?  Clarke notes that "there is no money to steal on the electrical grid, nor is there any intelligence value that would justify cyber espionage.  The only point to penetrating the grid's controls is to counter American military superiority by threatening to damage the underpinning of the U.S. economy.  Chinese military strategists have written about how in this way a nation like China could gain an equal footing with the militarily superior United States."

Anti-terror watchdogs have long been aware of the danger of an electromagnetic pulse triggered by the explosion of a nuclear device in the atmosphere over the United States.  But by acquiring the ability to enter our grid anytime it wishes and disable it, China has likely acquired the ability to accomplish the same result without exploding a bomb.

Not only has Beijing likely hacked into our grid but, according to authors Brett M. Decker and William C. Triplett II in their excellent book Bowing to Beijing, China has even hacked into the Pentagon computer network "including the one serving [then] Defense Secretary Robert Gates." 

James Lewis, director of the technology and policy program at the Washington think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies called the Chinese hacking "an espionage Pearl Harbor."  Lewis told 60 minutes that China had downloaded vast amounts of information from every major U.S. agency saying that we have lost more information than is stored in the entire Library of Congress through Chinese hacking.

What is the U.S. doing about it? Nothing.  The modern day story of appeasement is not Obama's kowtowing to Muslim extremists as much as his total failure to confront China.

The president and Secretary of State Clinton fret over alienating China for fear that they will stop lending us money.  Romney, who understands these things better than either Obama or Clinton, emphasizes China's vulnerability. "We sell then $50 billion.  They sell us $400 billion.  They want a trade war?  Bring it on!"

The Chinese lend us money because they have to.  They buy dollars to make our currency artificially expensive and theirs' commensurately cheap.  With their currency manipulation, our products are 40% more costly in their markets and theirs' are 40% cheaper in our stores, fueling the imbalance of trade.  Once they own the dollars, what are they going to do with them?  The only safe thing is to buy U.S. Treasury notes, hence they "lend" us money.  If they stopped buying dollars and acquiring an unfair trade advantage over us, we wouldn't need them to keep lending us money, our economy would be thriving.

We cannot sit by complacently and let China rob us blind, hacking our technology, our military secrets, and our power grid.  We need a president who will stand up for America.

To grasp the appalling extent of Chinese hacking and espionage against the U.S. commercial and military sectors, read about it in Screwed!, on sale now!

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

WARREN BUFFETT SUED BY OBAMA’S IRS… EVEN HE ISN’T SAFE - WAIT UNTIL THEY COME AFTER YOU FOR OBAMA’S SECOND-TERM TAXES AND OBAMACARE

WARREN BUFFETT SUED BY OBAMA’S IRS

By AJ

Obama and his rich pals think you are just another useful idiot like the Occupy (OWS) crowd.

While Obama seeks to enact the “Buffett Rule” to place a higher tax burden on families/small businesses who make $250K per year or more, his Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is suing Warren Buffett.

Obama’s pal just doesn’t want to pay his taxes… but he has no problem stumping for Obama and calling for a higher tax burden on families and small businesses.

“Get this: Uncle Sam is suing Warren Buffett's company over taxes. Yes, taxes. The US government, in a little-followed case in Ohio, filed a lawsuit this month against a unit of Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, seeking $366 million in taxes and penalties. The Berkshire division at the centre of the suit is NetJets, the private-aircraft company that caters to the nation's wealthiest - the people Buffett says should pay more in taxes.

It is an odd twist that a company controlled by Buffett - perhaps the most outspoken businessman in the country in support of raising taxes on the 'mega-rich' - is now in a dispute with the government over his company's paying too little in taxes.”

But it gets better… Buffett’s NetJets has now filed a lawsuit against the IRS.

“Now, NetJets and its sister division, which have filed their own suit against the IRS, say they "are stuck with a $642 million-plus bill for past taxes the IRS never indicated they were required to collect".

Obama’s rich friends do not want to pay their taxes, but they want to instill envy in the hearts of the uneducated and sing their “tax the rich” song.

Obama’s pal and Jobs Adviser, Jeffrey Immelt, has benefited since Obama took office through the same tax loopholes that Obama criticizes on the campaign trail. General Electric paid no Taxes in 2009, General Electric Paid No Federal Taxes in 2010.

“…GE's success at avoiding taxes is nothing short of extraordinary. The company, led by Immelt, earned $14.2 billion in profits in 2010, but it paid not a penny in taxes because the bulk of those profits, some $9 billion, were offshore. In fact, GE got a $3.2 billion tax benefit.”

Before blindly jumping on the “Tax the Rich” bandwagon, people should ask two simple questions:

  1. If Obama makes people pay even more in taxes, will I get some of that money? (Answer = No).
  2. Why are Obama’s millionaire and billionaire friends unwilling to pay more in taxes themselves?

Video:  Patriotic Millionaires Higher Taxes Treasury Department Donation The Daily Caller

Maybe it’s time to rethink the envy that Obama is selling, or at least see it for the BIG LIE that it is.

Video:  Milton Friedman: Why soaking the rich won't work. Reference:

Private jets, Warren Buffett and tax lawsuit

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-03-28/news/31249610_1_ticket-tax-tax-battle-first-tax

General Electric paid no Taxes in 2009

http://www.politisite.com/2010/04/12/general-electric-paid-no-taxes-in-2009/

General Electric Paid No Federal Taxes in 2010

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-paid-federal-taxes-2010/story?id=13224558

Obama's Second-Term Taxes 

By DICK MORRIS  - Published on TheHill.com on April 10, 2012

If Obama is reelected, the tax increase he and a Democratic Congress would impose on middle- and upper-middle-income Americans would be disastrous. It's easy to lose sight of his tax plans because he has hidden them in a variety of nooks and crannies, including the Simpson-Bowles Commission Report, the Pelosi budget of 2009 and the various tax proposals advanced by his party. But, should he win, they will all come out of hiding, and together, they will be the principal legislative thrust of his efforts in 2013.

For a couple making $250,000, these tax hikes would add another $3,000 to $4,000 a month in taxes (depending on whether they were self-employed).

For a couple making $150,000, they would add another $1,200 to $1,400 per month.
Let's all realize that Obama let a massive deficit accumulate precisely because he realized that doing so gave him the leverage he would need to raise taxes and increase, permanently, the size of government in America. Reagan let the deficit pile up so liberals couldn't spend more money. Obama did so in order to make conservatives vote for higher taxes.

How will he tax us? Let us count the ways:

• Most basic, of course, will be an increase in tax rates. Those paying 33 percent will now pay 36 percent. People paying 35 percent will now pay 40 percent. Most people accept and expect that Obama will raise these brackets if he is reelected. But they don't realize what else he will do.

• As he advocated in the 2008 campaign, he will eliminate the ceiling on wages that must be taxed for Social Security. Currently, wages are taxed at 6.2 percent (now, temporarily, at 4.2 percent) up to a ceiling about $100,000 per year in income. The ceiling rises with the cost of living. But Obama will eliminate the ceiling and subject all wages to FICA taxation. (In his campaign, he spoke of a "carve-out" for those making between $100,000 and $200,000, where income would be exempt from FICA, but don't count on it.) For those who are employed, the increase in FICA taxes will mean an effective increase in their tax bracket of 6.2 percentage points. For the self-employed, it will mean a whopping 12.4 percentage point increase, bringing their effective tax rate, if they are in the top bracket, over 52 percent. Obama has refrained from addressing Social Security's financial problems and will do so until after the election. But his solution will be higher taxes, not curtailed benefits.

• All deductions for mortgage interest, charitable giving and state and local tax payments would likely end for those making more than $250,000.

• Even for those making less than $250,000, the Bowles-Simpson recommendations call for replacing the current tax deduction for mortgage interest, charitable giving and state and local taxes with a tax credit. Usually 8 percent is mentioned as the tax credit level.

So add it up:

Case A
Married couple
Income: $250,000
Home: $300,000 (mortgage interest: $20,000)
Property taxes: $15,000
Self-employed
Basic tax rate: +5% +$12,500
FICA on full income: +$18,600 ($9,300 if employed)
No deduction
Mortgage interest +$ 6,500
Prop Taxes +$5,000
State income tax (9%) +$7,500
Total additional tax: +$50,100 ($40,800 if employed)

Case B
Married couple
Income: $150,000
Home: $200,000 (mortgage interest: $10,000)
Property taxes: $10,000
Self-employed
Basic tax rate: +3% +$ 4,500
FICA on full income +$6,200 ($3,100 if employed)
8% credit, no deduction
Mortgage interest +$ 2,500
Property taxes +$ 2,500
State income tax (6%) +$ 1,500
(calculation replaces deduction at 33% bracket with an 8% credit)
Total additional tax: +$17,200 ($14,100 if employed)

Can we afford Barack Obama for four more years? No way! And don't say you weren't warned!

Related:

A Wicked Financial Storm Descends on America

Nothing to Do With Health Care!  It’s All About New Taxes and Tax Collection

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Is It Time for Conservatives, Moderates, Independents and the GOP to Come Together? Especially After Super Tuesday?

Charles Krauthammer says, “The long primary process has ‘Diminished’ the GOP Brand”

In a recent interview:

Megyn Kelly, FOX News: Charles, a lot of Republican voters have been uncomfortable watching this primary contest so far with all the barbs being exchanged between the candidates and in Michigan, as we've seen in some of the earlier states, it got a little ugly in the end. Your take now at this point in the process on whether this extended primary process that was a choice by the GOP is working to the GOP's advantage?

Charles Krauthammer: No. I think it's hurting them terribly. And you're right about the fact that it is a Republican choice. And I think it was a really stupid choice. They decided that in 2008 they had gotten a candidate too early. A weak candidate in McCain and they got slaughtered. So they were going to undo that and have a long, drawn out process. Almost all the contests would be proportional, and let the voters decide over time.
The flaw in the reasoning, and it was pretty obvious, they'd be running against an incumbent president, unlike in 2008. The Democrats would not have any early contests. They wouldn't have any negativity. They wouldn't have all this expenditure in trying to decide who is going to be the nominee.

So they should have had a shorter race, but they designed it for a longer race in a year in which the Democrats have no race at all and therefore have an advantage. Nonetheless, I think the way Obama has performed as president is so disappointing that that will even out, and I think it is now an even contest between Democrats and Republicans as to the general election. But, it shouldn't be. Republicans should be way ahead, given how badly Obama has done and how weak the economy is. But this process has certainly hurt all the Republican candidates, and unfortunately diminished the brand.

The case for Mitt Romney

There are an awful lot of "true conservative" types dumping on Mitt Romney these days... some are saying that he is no better than Obama, and some are even threatening to not vote if Romney is the nominee. I don't get it... I know that Romney isn't perfect, but I don't understand the hatred of him.

Here was Mark Levin in 2008 arguing that Romney was the most conservative choice:

Let’s face it, none of the candidates are perfect. They never are. But McCain is the least perfect of the viable candidates. The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney. I say this as someone who has not been an active Romney supporter. If conservatives don’t unite behind Romney at this stage, and become vocal in their support for him, then they will get McCain as their Republican nominee and probably a Democrat president. And in either case, we will have a deeply flawed president.

Of course that was before Levin suddenly decided to hate Romney's guts. In 2008 he was calling Romney a conservative... maybe an imperfect conservative, but still a conservative. And now Romney is some sort of ultra-liberal who should be hated like poison?
Well, I don't see any perfect conservatives this time around either. I initially supported Rick Perry, but he just wasn't able to sell himself... so now that Perry is gone, Romney has become my second choice. Who else am I supposed to vote for? Rick Santorum may yet win the nomination, and I will vote for him if he does, but I don't see how he could possibly beat Obama in the general election. (I don't think that Newt Gingrich could beat Obama either, but I don't see him winning the nomination at this point anyway, so the question is probably moot.)

As our nominee, Mitt Romney would keep the focus on Obama's failed policies... Romneycare is a problem for Romney, but not an insurmountable one. I think Romney will do a much better job of exposing Obama as a radical leftist than Santorum ever could, mainly because Santorum is too eager to let himself get lured into lecturing us about things like Satan, sodomy, pornography, contraception, and whether or not Protestants are real Christians.

I've been fairly impressed with Mitt Romney's performance in the debates so far, and I think he would do just fine against Obama... but you don't have to take my word for it, here is Santorum himself endorsing Mitt Romney in 2008:

Posted by Crazy Bald Guy – Cross-Posted to the Watchers Council clip_image001

Romney is a much more generous, outgoing, personable and relatable in person than he appears in debates or on TV.  He also does not toot his own horn as do both Obama and Gingrich… who love to toot theirs.  In one of the debates Romney said he did not inherit his money, that he is a self-made man and that is true.  What he didn’t tell us is that he did inherit money from his parents and gave it all away in their honor.  He gave much of it to develop the George Romney Management Institute at BYU and the rest to charity.

Romney also took no salary when he was the Governor of Massachusetts.

And because Romney does not sound his own horn and is steady and calm instead of boastful and grandiose a lot of people like to say that he isn’t tough enough and doesn’t show enough feelings. You really need to read this story to see another side of him.

And in the end, ROMNEY’S EDGE IS ELECTABILITY, which seems to be proving out as Romney is gaining momentum in Ohio.  In yet another bizarre twist to this roller coaster 2012 GOP Primary race, Rick Santorum's lead in Ohio has all but evaporated. What once was a double digit lead is now down to 2 points. Mitt Romney is making a late surge for the ever important electoral state of Ohio - but will it be enough to overcome Santorum? Why is Romney surging anyway? Could it be the bizarre interview of Santorum that Glenn played a portion of? See HERE.

When recently asked about a brokered convention Romney said: “That’s just not going to happen!”  However, if it does according to a Fox News online poll: Sarah Palin is the overwhelming choice if there is a brokered convention.  It would be a Game Change that many of us can believe in!

 

It is time for us to decide… Go with Romney who moderates and independents like and can vote for… or go for the real conservative who will really brings us hope and change and mesmerizes those who listen.  If you have ever heard and seen Sarah Palin speak live, especially to a large crowd, and if you really know what she has done and what she stands for…… not the Sarah Palin that Katie Couric, Tina Fey and the Progressive left have fed us… you know that she could win, if any true conservative can win!

Conservative Super Star Sarah Palin: Brought the Red Meat to CPAC and They Loved It… Loved Her!

Video: Full Speech – Sarah Palin at CPAC 2012

Video: Game Change We Can Believe In

But perhaps in honor of the memory of a man who many called the the spiritual leader of the modern conservative, libertarian movement and ‘the’ conservative warrior by others, Andrew Breitbart, we should consider his words as he warned at CPAC:  "Unite or Perish!"  Or we draft the gal that will bring us real change and excites the conservative base… especially with his recent wins.  Why settle for Sarah light?

Strategist and author Dick Morris said, if there ever was a reason to pull together and vote for Romney, unless you are hoping for a brokered convention, it is the Michigan experience of last weekend.  Romney won by a large margin in both Arizona and with a large margin of Republicans and Independents in Michigan.  But 100,000 Democrats voted in Michigan against Romney, on cue from a combination of a robot call put out by the Santorum campaign and a movement organized by Team Obama (of unions and operatives).

Morris says if Democrats, Team Obama, start interfering and trying to change the outcome of the GOP primary to their preference, Rick Santorum, at least in this case, it tells us who they fear to run against most, Mitt Romney. And if the GOP lets this go beyond May or June without a clear chosen candidate, and worse yet all the way until September, after the Republican convention, Obama will win a second term. The GOP will not have enough time to mount a campaign against Obama between September 1st and  November 6th… and Team Obama knows that!

Wake-up, America… eyes on the price, which is defeating Obama. After Super Tuesday, if not before, unless there is a miracle and someone breaks out, if Santorum and Gingrich split the south and Romney takes  the rest or most, it is time to pull together or we will end up out foxing ourselves into losing our country because we played the wrong game for too long.

*Since this was originally written Mitt Romney won in Washington state (today) on Saturday, with Ron Paul coming in at second.  (It was considered Paul’s best shot at a first place win.) In the post election analysis, Charles Krauthammer said if Santorum and Gingrich have a weak showing on Super Tuesday, the Republican Establishment will start putting pressure on them to step aside, at least one of them, because they are damaging the GOP brand and are harming the outcome of the bigger goal… beating President Obama in the Fall.  Mitt Romney also appears to have had his best debate/forum performance ever on Saturday night from Wilmington, Ohio sponsored by and featured on Huckabee. 

Mitt had a very personal and relatable moment with small business owner David McArthur from St. Louis, when he talked about his son. Romney was outwardly emotional during his response to a question from McArthur who is the father of a soldier experiencing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and a traumatic brain injury after being wounded in Afghanistan.  Governor Romney was obviously very moved by David’s story and clearly grateful for the sacrifice; Romney’s voice broke, crackling for a moment, as he responded. It was a great chance for people to see Romney’s humanity at a time when many voters say they have been unable to connect with him.  Mitt also did a great job of more clearly explaining his detailed economic plan and was even funny during the forum… when he forgot to leave the stage for the next candidate, Santorum, to come on and give his final comments.  Romney laughed, lightly grabbing Santorum at the shoulders saying, “I’m not leaving!”. (All three candidates did well at the Huckabee Forum, focusing on jobs… Ron Paul opted not to continue campaigning in Washington State and not to participate in the forum, but Romney definitely came out on top!)