Let’s Be Honest – Part Deux

A while back I wrote this same entitled thread about the need for honesty in politics, and quite frankly this is a thread that could be written every day. Last time I spoke of Harry Reid and his incessant whine of Republican obstructionism, of which I pointed out was just a cover for Harry not getting anything done in the Senate. In fact we are now over three years without a national budget, which is unconstitutional and has nothing to do with obstructionism. I believe the reason Harry won’t put together a budget is because he is afraid of being honest with the American public in letting them know exactly where the money is being allocated. Another part of that previous thread was Harry’s reluctance to even bring to the floor the two Ryan budgets, and the other Congressional Republican legislation that continues to languish on Harry’s desk. Why is Harry so afraid of even having a debate on these proposals? It simply doesn’t make sense, of course neither does Harry who will no doubt go down in history as the worst Senate Majority leader ever.

Today I want to speak about “fair share”, the Democrat mantra designed to enrage the proletariat and marshal the troops to Obama’s heroic cause. Fair share is obviously code for the “rich” not paying enough in taxes – well again, let’s be honest. The fact is, the top 10% of wage earners paid 71% of all federal income taxes and brought in 43% of all income earned. The bottom 50% of wage earners paid just 2% of all federal income taxes and brought in 13% of all income earned. Not exactly a “fair” ratio in my opinion, and this doesn’t even account for the nearly 47% of all wage earners who didn’t pay any federal income taxes. Couple this with the fact that nearly 110 million people received a welfare benefit in 2011, up from nearly 97 million in just 2009, which equates to a 13% increase in welfare distribution in just the last 3 years. And much of this welfare is in the form of food stamps which had a shocking 164% increase in the last three years, yet you will never hear this from the Obama media, which is dishonest to say the least. During the Bush administration, when budgets were actually submitted, government spending never exceeded $2.5 trillion. Obama’s spending has never been less than $3.4 trillion, absent any budget of course and that is another fact not mentioned in the media. Of course the media did try and spin that a while back, by lumping in the Obama 2009 stimulus into Bush’s budget, but were appropriately reprimanded for their dishonesty. The fact is, Obama has raised annual baseline government spending by over a $1 trillion dollars, with no plans to scale that back, thus the need for the “rich” to pay more, however, if you were to raise the top bracket by the 3.9% that Obama is calling for, that would generate approximately $70 billion dollars, or enough to run the government for 8 days. So who are we kidding? That isn’t a solution, but if you listen to “The One We Have All Been Waiting For”, this is what is holding American back.

We can never have an honest conversation about the countries affairs while liberal partisan ideologues run the show. Obama has no desire to actually be honest with the country and that is why he needs to go.

Advertisements

88 thoughts on “Let’s Be Honest – Part Deux

  1. Jeremiah August 10, 2012 / 5:23 am

    The problem is, we don’t have any representation in Washington, D.C. anymore.
    They don’t represent people like you and I who wish for less of an entitlement society, and more of a working class of citizens. Sure, the top 1-2% create the wealth, but it’s the middle man, the little guy, personal business owner that creates the work, which is where people are looking to…but they can’t afford to hire because of the enormous tax burdens that the government places on them.

    I am not out to look for trouble, but one thing I will make clear, I believe that every person in Congress should be forced out, and new blood put in Washington.

    And as for Obama, he is destroying this nation, he is a traitor to this nation, and needs to be put on trial for treason. He bows to foreign dictators, while apologizing for America. He is a total disgrace to this nation.

    I’ve been called all kinds of names here…had my character assassinated…but I back down for no man. I stand for what I believe in….and believe in what I stand for. I stand for freedom, justice, and tranquility for all…for the weak, for the old and young alike…the main purpose I was put on this earth.

    So, to you lefties….

    BRING IT!

    • neocon1 August 10, 2012 / 5:44 am

      jer

      I’ve been called all kinds of names here…had my character assassinated…but I back down for no man. I stand for what I believe in….and believe in what I stand for.

      GOOD!!

      You have just gained admittance into B4V Bad Boyz club with GMB and Me……Woo Hoo…… 🙂

      you will soon be threatened with banishment………(sarcasm) right??

    • Canadian Observer August 10, 2012 / 6:52 am

      “I believe that every person in Congress should be forced out, and new blood put in Washington.”…Jeremiah.

      Surely not every person, Jeremiah. Wouldn’t you want to at least keep those tea party folks who were elected and sent to Washington to represent you? They are there to fight for everything you believe in, aren’t they, so why would you want to force them out?

      • neocon1 August 10, 2012 / 6:55 am

        cO

        see arguing with idiots pg 13-69

      • MickeyMack August 10, 2012 / 8:56 am

        Neocon1 what is wrong wtiht what Candian Observer said? It makes sense. I dont know if Jeremiah has been attacked here but I think it is stupid to say kick out everybody in DC, we worked hard to get tea party people in and it is stupid to say nowkick them out. Its like when you came after me without even looking at what I said you just decided I am a Dem so you insulted me. And if you have something to say why not say it instead of your stupid go to the book stuff.

      • neocon1 August 10, 2012 / 4:48 pm

        mickey mouse

        who cares what some FOREIGN liberal asshat (co) “thinks”

  2. Cluster August 10, 2012 / 6:47 am

    Here’s another “let’s be honest” moment. Would you rather that our President be an inexperienced man who wrote his first auto biography at the age of 29, and of whom has relied on the benevolence of others to achieve his standing?

    Or, a self made man who turns his own unexpected misfortune into someone else’s gain? Enjoy the read:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/us/politics/in-real-estate-deal-romney-made-his-loss-a-couples-gain.html?pagewanted=1

    Mitt Romney is a man of character, principles, and good old fashioned American common sense. Traits of which our current man child President completely lacks.

    • neocon1 August 10, 2012 / 7:01 am

      The TRUTH shall make you FREE

      GO MITT! Muslims and Lefties have their panties in a wad over Romney’s meetings with anti-Islam advisors
      They were positively apoplectic when Mitt Romney chose Walid Phares (Lebanese-American Christian and outspoken opponent of Islam) as his foreign policy adviser. Now they are spitting nails after learning that Romney has also been meeting with with Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, who has said Islam “should not be protected under the First Amendment.“

      http://barenakedislam.com/

  3. GMB August 10, 2012 / 7:10 am

    No real change will ever come until, We the People, once again remove our governments unrestricted ability to tax our wealth away. Supposed opposition politicians like the three stooges will always see some benefit in cooperating with enemy. As long as the payoff involves taxpayer money.

    Remember the vichyites when the time comes.

  4. Cluster August 10, 2012 / 7:30 am

    Speculation is this morning that Christie could be the VP. Interesting. Christie has been a very effective conservative governor of a very blue state, enjoys a 20+ point approval rating in NJ, and would be able to bring the fight to the democrats like no other conservative could. I would absolutely love to see Christie debate Biden.

    • neocon1 August 10, 2012 / 7:52 am

      christie is a fat blowhard posing as conservative.
      he has a COUPLE of conservative points the rest? Nah…
      keep the fat loud mouh in joisey where he belongs.

      IMHO

      • GMB August 10, 2012 / 7:55 am

        “christie is a fat blowhard posing as conservative.
        he has a COUPLE of conservative points the rest? Nah…
        keep the fat loud mouh in joisey where he belongs.

        IMHO”

        Double dirty dog with an extra helping of bad boy spice

        DITTO!

      • neocon1 August 10, 2012 / 8:01 am

        Christie here

      • Cluster August 10, 2012 / 8:17 am

        You know gentleman, we can stand strong against radical Islam, and still work with Muslims. It’s not an all or nothing scenario. Like Pawlenty, Christie did flirt with cap and trade, but they are not the only two either. It’s simply a position that he is wrong on, but really, who amongst us is right in every issue.

        As far as Tom Marr is concerned, much of what he voiced is simply emotional hyperbole which is usually a liberal trait. I prefer a more methodical common sense, rational approach for conservatism. If you want to be over emotional, become a liberal.

      • GMB August 10, 2012 / 8:23 am

        We will start off with his backing of a cap and trade scheme. Go next to his stance on 2nd Amendment issues. Finish with his refusal to have NJ sign on with the fight against barky care.

        And yes he did nominate a terrorist supporting judge to the NJ Court system. The question would be, why is that off the table? Does it make you uncomfortable?

      • GMB August 10, 2012 / 8:32 am

        “If you want to be over emotional, become a liberal.”
        If you insist that everyone echo your opinions and march in lock step with YOUR ideology, you are already a liberal.

      • Cluster August 10, 2012 / 8:34 am

        I really don’t see Christie’s position on the second amendment as radical:

        http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/New_Jersey/Chris_Christie/Views/The_Second_Amendment/

        He does support the right for the people of NJ to buy one gun, per day – hardly restrictive. And to be honest, I also am not in favor of assault weapons being widely available. Assault weapons are made for one reason only.

        Re: the reluctance to join the fight against Obama care, I don’t know the specifics as to why, so would want to know more on that. I have addressed his cap and trade stance which I oppose, as well as the appointment of the judge. Do you have anything else?

      • Cluster August 10, 2012 / 8:37 am

        Oh please GMB, I hardly expect everyone to march in lockstep with me. I don’t even agree with myself 100% of the time, but I do grow tired of people who will not think outside the box. It’s a big world out there, and it takes a thinking person to navigate the challenges to ultimately do what’s right.

      • Cluster August 10, 2012 / 8:41 am

        Look, Christie is not my first choice, or even second or third, but if it is him, he is someone that has enough common sense and rationality to expect that he will apply his conservative leanings to ultimately do the right thing.

      • GMB August 10, 2012 / 9:08 am

        How many more reasons do I need? Mr Christie is just the tonic New Jersey needs and in my opinion that is where he should stay.

        Did you watch the video? Wasn’t that enough? I think no matter how many things I state, you will need one more.

        I am not voting for Mitt because of Mitt or who ever he chooses as his VP. If he chooses Christie he will still get my vote this time around.

        I am voting for Mitt 1) because Allied Van Lines needs to show up at
        the White House in January, 2) because i am not even ready to concede my home deep blue state of Illinois to barky.

        barky and mooch must go.

        The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is not a hard thing to understand. Our founders fought against George III with the most modern military equipment available at the time.

        A disarmed citizen is not a citizen at. A disarmed citizen is a slave.

      • Amazona August 10, 2012 / 9:29 am

        I’m with GMB on this.

        Personally, I don’t like Christie. I don’t like his moratorium on fracking, for example. Yes, I know, it is supposed to be a compromise—-he vetoed a complete ban and instead put in a one-year moratorium but it was still caving in to the watermelons.

        I don’t think he will appeal to much of the nation. He came blasting in as the new hope of the party but hasn’t really lived up to the hype. His waffling on things like gun purchases and fracking don’t strike me as bold and courageous stands on Constitutional law. He is abrasive and charmless—perfect for New Jersey but not for the nation.

        I think an underlying consideration when voting is “Do I want this person to represent me?” And I don’t think a lot of people would look at Christie and say “yes”. The list of people I could say “yes” to is really long: Romney, Pawlenty, Ryan, Pence, Daniels, Portman, Rubio, even Palin. Christie? Not so much.

        Having said that, I would still vote for Romney if he were to choose Christie, but I would still think he made a mistake. And I don’t see Christie bringing in undecided votes.

      • Cluster August 10, 2012 / 10:04 am

        I don’t disagree with any of what Amazona and GMB said. Like I said, Christie is certainly not my first, second or third choice. And I agree that the second amendment is a constitutional pillar that can not be compromised. An powerful government is born from an ignorant and unarmed populace – that being said, I would like to have some control, not a ban, but some kind of monitoring on the sale of military style high caliber weapons that fire off hundreds of rounds a minute. Again, let’s be honest, those weapons are not for hunting, and I have to believe that there is a common sense approach that we can arrive that helps keep these type of weapons out of the hands of someone like James Holmes. That’s all I am saying.

      • dbschmidt August 10, 2012 / 10:38 am

        Cluster,

        Not to be too picky here but the general population cannot purchase an “assault” weapon. Since 1934, all automatic (including 3 round burst) weapons are limited to the military, police, and those possessing a Class 3 firearms license–the rest is cosmetic.

        High round clips are no real benefit either because I constantly out shoot semi-automatic pistols in competition with my revolver using speed loaders.

        Do not mistake cosmetics for what lies underneath. I do not own any “military-like” weapons even though I was both an expert in pistol (M1911A1) and rifle(M16-A2) in the Marines because they do not suit my needs but they can be great hunting weapons under 300 yards. Then again I like my S&W Model 29 and Henry H006 lever action repeating rifle as they share the same ammunition. No fumbling.

        And just to throw in the “required” snark–I have owned weapons since 1976 and never once has any of my weapons ever attempted robbed a gas station or convenience store. They are tools and inanimate.

      • GMB August 10, 2012 / 10:41 am

        “Common sense approach” That sounds like a line that someone would use when they want to take away your right to self defense. That comment puts you in good company with former mayor dailey and curreny mayor rahmmie boy. Not to mention Gun Control Inc and the brady people.

        At this time you need a federal firearms license to possess a fully automatic weapon. They are not available to the general public. This is a fallacy. Any gas operated weapon can be turned into a fully automatic weapon by anyone who has the knowledge and skill to do so.

        There is no such thing as an nonconvertible weapon. More “common sense laws” will not change this fact. More laws will just
        make more people into criminals.

        This is a objective of the collectivist. Conservatives, in my opinion, should be working to restore our freedoms to the level we had under our founding fathers. Not helping the collectivists because it is “common sense”

        Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither
        inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
        better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
        may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T.
        Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

        John Adams: “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
        defense.” (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

        George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
        people’s liberty teeth (and) keystone… the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable… more than
        99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
        atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
        we need them every hour.” (Address to 1st session of Congress)

        George Mason: “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” (3 Elliot,
        Debates at 380)

        Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
        almost every country in Europe.” (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

        George Washington: “A free people ought to be armed.” (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
        Chronicle.)

        Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (T. Jefferson papers,
        334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

        James Madison: “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
        other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms.” (Federalist Paper #46)

        I beg everyone’s pardon for such a long post. 😛

      • dbschmidt August 10, 2012 / 10:49 am

        GMB,

        Too add to your list of quotes is one of my favorites (paraphrased badly):
        “When seconds count and the police are just minutes away”

      • Amazona August 10, 2012 / 10:54 am

        db, you beat me to it. A semi automatic weapon can’t fire hundreds of rounds a minute, and automatic weapons are not available to the public.

        I am not a gun person. I know how to shoot, I have kept some of my late husband’s weapons, if I go to range with shooters I enjoy some target shooting, but I do know that some of the so-called “assault” rifles are just plain fun to shoot, according to my husband and my brothers and other gun aficianados.

        I really hate the term “assault rifle”. If I assault you with .22 it becomes an assault rifle, and if I hit you with a rock it becomes an assault rock. I see it as a term designed to stir up emotional resistance to a certain category of weapon, a category which can be expanded as desired.

        I remember getting an email a few years ago about a man who had been hunting in the Northwest who was attacked by a really huge and very irate bear. He was carrying a powerful semi-automatic hunting rifle and this is the only thing that saved his life—–the ability to crank out shot after shot in quick succession. As it was, the bear didn’t drop till it was only a few feet from the hunter.

        The fact is, if you have a deranged person intent on killing a lot of people, he can and will do it whether or not he has an arsenal of guns. Holmes could have made a bomb and carried it into the theater. No, the problem is not with the weapons, it is with the new culture of violence and killing for fun or convenience.

      • Cluster August 10, 2012 / 10:57 am

        That’s good information on gun laws db, thank you. I really don’t know what the current legislation is in that it has never really concerned me, but I am concerned about the growing number of lunatics in our society and their ability to wipe out a school or a theater in a matter of minutes.

        I also own a gun, and it too has never killed anyone.

      • Cluster August 10, 2012 / 11:00 am

        I really hate the term “assault rifle”. If I assault you with .22 it becomes an assault rifle, and if I hit you with a rock it becomes an assault rock. I see it as a term designed to stir up emotional resistance to a certain category of weapon, a category which can be expanded as desired. – Amazona

        That’s an excellent analysis.

      • Amazona August 10, 2012 / 11:32 am

        I started thinking about the cultural changes in our country over the last fifty years.

        Have you ever seen a movie made before, say, 1970 that was graphically violent? That showed body parts flying and blood spattering and violence in explicit and gory detail?

        When I look back at even the 60’s I see a general culture of revulsion at the ideas of casually killing an unborn child, at the presentation of overt sexual acts in movies much less TV, at the idea of children “entertaining” themselves by getting points for blowing people up and scoring the bloodiest and most graphic hits on human targets in “games”. None of these things would have been remotely acceptable in our society prior to the end of the century.

        Remember the movie “Midnight Cowboy”? It was shocking at the time for a couple of scenes that would seem mild if shown today on television. Yes, females did kill their unborn children, but it was a shameful act and not condoned, much less promoted, by society. There were occasional spree killers, like the ones in Capote’s book “In Cold Blood” but they were very rare, perhaps once in a decade. And the killers were considered low-lifes, scorned and reviled. The bloody finale of “Bonnie and Clyde” was strongly criticized for its graphic violence, which would now be acceptable on prime time network TV. When kids played cops and robbers, the robbers were bad guys, and when they got shot they just grabbed their chests and fell to the ground. Now kids shoot realistic weapons at bad guys and cheer when they make heads fly off bodies and chests explode in bone and blood.

        We have become a society in which violence is not only accepted, it is rewarded with accolades and Oscars, and where it—often combined with graphic sex and foul language—-is a staple on cable television. Our children grow up with the constant message from the Left that their lives were never considered important in and of themselves but only because their mothers didn’t find them too inconvenient at the time—-a message that life has no inherent value but only whatever someone else assigns to it.

        When a society becomes coarse and crude, when it openly promotes the annihilation of innocent babies because they are just not convenient, when it glorifies violence for the sake of violence, when grotesque deaths are considered entertainment, when children are trained to kill through their “games” and grow up focusing on the points they gain by imposing the most bloody and gruesome and graphically depicted deaths on other human beings, how can we be surprised when some take it to the next logical level and move onto real live targets?

        And we can’t ignore the Fame Factor. When the same society glorifies people who have done nothing but be outrageous and often offensive, making them stars, making them rich, putting them on magazine covers and reporting their antics on television shows, the mentally unhinged who have grown up scoring point for killing people in games are going to be tempted to take the games to the next level and become famous at the same time.

      • Cluster August 10, 2012 / 11:55 am

        You nailed it

  5. GMB August 10, 2012 / 7:31 am

    Let no one collect their wealth from the taxpayer trough. Serving one term in Congress should be enough for any one person. When a TEA Party rep stands down elect another in his/her place.

    It is that simple. Instead we have examples like pelosi and reid who have been in Congress forever and gotten rich off peddling influence. You can add the stooges to that list too. Always reaching across the isle so they can hang on to what ever crumbs of power the collectivists throw their way.

    • neocon1 August 10, 2012 / 7:53 am

      GMB

      mcLame being a shining example of this.

      • GMB August 10, 2012 / 9:45 am

        Neo, very good example. Now who do we blame though? Him or the people who keep electing him? They had a very good TEA Party choice last time around and voted for darth rino.

        PS. Caveat. Yes darth rino is an insult.

    • Amazona August 10, 2012 / 10:38 am

      GMB, I used to think the same way about limiting time in DC to one term, but I have rethought that after considering the complexity of the job and the steep learning curve. I do think we need term limits but I would give people time to really learn what they need to learn.

      I may be off base here, but when I look at Congress I apply my own experience. I used to go to all of my national horse association meetings—I was the only person to do so over a period of about 15 years—-and I was often called upon to take minutes when the secretary was unable to attend. What I saw was new board members coming in with ideas of how to “fix” problems they saw, voting in changes, and then dropping off the board a term or so later by the time the Unintended Consequences started to appear. So the next round of board members would see the new set of problems, slap a bandaid on them, and then move on. There was no continuity. It often fell upon me, as the only person in the room who had been part of two or three or four of these cycles, to take the new boards back through the process to the original problem so IT could be addressed.

      What this taught me is the importance of continuity, and this would be lost if we were to have complete turnover every six years. I don’t have an answer—–I would suspect any answer that could be summed up in one blog post—-but I think we do need to carefully address the issue of career Congresscritters.

      I think the problem has to have several tiers of solutions. The first and most important is to drastically reduce the amount of power and influence the national Congress has, by strictly adhering to the enumerated duties of the federal government. When power is shifted back to the states, where it belongs, people will follow the power.

      Another idea I have is to limit the scope of any bill to its actual intent, and not allow omnibus bills which attach all sorts of unrelated things to the original bill. If we can pass a law that says any bill MUST be written by its sponsor, be limited to ten pages (I have rethought my original 100-page limit) and refer only to one thing, we would dramatically reduce the ability of Congress to pack in pork and enrich themselves. I would rather have ten bills, each short and specific and succinct, than one massive, complex, and overarching bill that is also packed with things that have nothing to do with the original bill.

    • dbschmidt August 10, 2012 / 10:41 am

      If the people decide on term limits then part of that has to include a major adjustment (downward) of the benefits package CongressCritters get because I do not think they deserve 100% pay and benefits after they leave office now–let alone every 4 or 6 years.

  6. Cluster August 10, 2012 / 7:42 am

    Once again, Obama’s shameless regard for honesty is in full display:

    “The Obama campaign has now admitted that it lied to the media and the American people in a disgraceful attempt to conceal their connection to this shameful [cancer-death] smear,” said a statement from Ryan Williams, a Romney spokesman. “Americans deserve better — they deserve a president who’s willing to run an honest campaign and be honest about his own record,”

    Had enough yet?

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/10/obama-campaign-finally-tells-truth-on-misleading-super-pac-ad/#ixzz238ujDrWP

  7. Cluster August 10, 2012 / 9:01 am

    Here’s a good exercise – Who do you most align with on the national stage, and I would like the liberals to chime in on this as well. As for me, I most align with someone like Rubio and Ryan. I have never heard one single statement from either one of those two that I disagree with. Ryan is extremely bright and thinks outside the box to challenging issues. Rubio has a common sense that is second to none and articulates conservative thought much like Reagan.

    Who do you align with?

    • dbschmidt August 10, 2012 / 11:44 am

      Here I fully agree with you; however (nice way of saying ‘but’) I think Rubio is too young (experience wise) at this point and Ryan is needed where he is. Therefore, I would “settle” for Jindal, T-Paw, or Portman among others. Right now, IIRC, the biggest need for Romney is foreign caveats because of the job the MSM did on him during his trip.

      Pull a toss-up state and round out his creds. Okay, I am back to Rubio.

      • Cluster August 10, 2012 / 12:01 pm

        I don’t disagree with Ryan being very well suited for where he is, but (a nice way of saying however, lol), as VP, Ryan would help shape the Senate and would be the tie breaker vote if needed, which could be huge. And I think Cantor could pick up where he left off.

      • Amazona August 10, 2012 / 1:27 pm

        I think the Complicit Agenda Media spin on Romney’s foreign trip can be corrected, and the media will take a hit for their blatant misrepresentation of fact–what we call ‘lying’.

        If we are serious about looking for a super-strong foreign affairs VP, we should look to Bolton, who has always been a favorite of mine for the job. Months ago I posited a Romney/Bolton ticket, which would give us international expertise as well as business experience and know-how.

        Santorum is an Iran wonk, having dedicated much of his political and personal life to understanding and dealing with Iran. From his web site:

        “President Barack Obama naively and cavalierly once declared Iran as a “tiny country” that did not pose a serious threat. However, this week’s report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) now shows that these radical Islamists are on the verge of having a nuclear weapon.

        If Barack Obama has taught us anything, it’s that experience matters. Rick Santorum has that experience – serving 8 years on Senate Armed Services Committee, authoring the Iran Freedom and Support Act in 2004 and the Syrian Accountability Act. In fact, Rick Santorum has recognized the looming threat of Iran’s nuclear ambitions for nearly a decade – standing tall against both Republicans and Democrats who have discounted and dismissed the reality that this radical theocracy is intent on destroying Israel and western civilization.

        Santorum Administration’s Response To Iran:

        Reinstate full funding authorized under the Iran Freedom and Support Act to assist pro-democracy groups within Iran
        Bring greater attention to human rights violations of the Iranian regime against democracy protestors and minority religious groups
        Would work with Israel to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat immediately; and developing a potential plan for military action if needed
        Would work with Israel to determine the proper military response needed to stabilize the region, protect our allies and protect this country – including the authorization of targeted airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
        Any nuclear scientist proven to be working for Iran’s nuclear program would be treated as an enemy combatant
        Help create Strike Funds to help organizers on the ground publicly protest and overthrow the regime
        Economically target Iran by sanctioning Iran’s central bank coupled with opening all forms of energy production in the U.S effectively devastating Iran’s only economy
        Ensure Iranian officials cannot access any of their funds by freezing bank accounts and significantly limit their travel by revoking visas
        Refuse to negotiate on any level with the terrorist state of Iran
        Neutralize Iran’s relationships with their primary allies in The Middle East by increasing pressure on Hezbollah and Syria
        Eliminate the post of U.S. Ambassador to Syria
        Stand with Israel as an ally and in any efforts Israel may take to defend themselves from Iranian aggression
        Would push for, fully fund and build a comprehensive missile defense system, and reevaluate the ramifications of the Start Treaty
        Authorize more research on the Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Threat
        Develop a National Prevention Plan to prevent a severe terrestrial and space emergencies that would take down our information systems or electrical grids

        During his time in elected office, Rick Santorum was the national leader and ahead of the curve on identifying and proposing real solutions to deal with the threat of a nuclear Iran:

        Served on the Senate Armed Services Committee for 8 years, where he worked to transform the military from a Cold War force into one prepared to deal with the threats of today and tomorrow;
        Author of the Iran Freedom and Support Act, which imposed real sanctions on the Iranian regime and authorized $100 million in annual funding for pro-democracy movements within Iran; and,
        Author of the Syria Accountability Act to combat the threat Syria posed to Israel.”

        And he might help carry Pennsylvania.

  8. bloodypenquinstump August 10, 2012 / 12:13 pm

    Fox just released a new presidential poll showing President Obama leading Mitt Romney by 9 points. Keep hiding your finances Mitt it is totally working.

    • GMB August 10, 2012 / 12:16 pm

      Darn, who let the smelly sock in?

    • Cluster August 10, 2012 / 12:47 pm

      Geez, and I remember when liberals thought of Faux News as a news source not to be trusted.

      Rasmussen has Romney up by 4 – 47 – 43

      Polls will be polls

      • Amazona August 10, 2012 / 1:12 pm

        Cluster, ever play poker? Ever hear of the tactic of “sandbagging”?

        I think Fox has.

    • Amazona August 10, 2012 / 1:11 pm

      Yeah, thinking that as long as your income is legal and as long as you are paying all the taxes you are supposed to pay what you earn is nobody’s damned business IS pretty sinister to the Loony Left, those mindless lemmings lined up to be told what they think by their minders,

      They prefer income that comes from bribes, under-the-table deals, packets of money stashed in the freezer, having criminal associates buy adjacent land and then selling it to you for a pittance, and not paying taxes at all.

      And they are drooling over their fantasy of finding something to gnaw on in Romney’s financial records. This is what they do—what they HAVE to do, given the harsh reality of their situation. They are stuck with a guy who got elected only because of an image he projected and promises he made, and now the image is badly tarnished (he is proved to be inarticulate without a teleprompter, and a pretty unpleasant surly type who pouts when he doesn’t get his own way) and none of the promises have come to pass.

      They are stuck with a guy who clearly dislikes his job and spends as little time as possible at it, preferring to take lavish taxpayer-paid vacations and hang out on the golf course while the nation heads into a death spiral of economic disaster, and having to try to get him reelected means dangling any kind of distraction they can come up with or invent to draw attention away from the truth.

      They are stuck with a First Lady who won’t put her hand on her heart for the national anthem, who sneers at reverence for the flag, whose only respect for this country is based on the fact that it let her husband get into office, who is an embarrassment abroad as she manhandles the Queen of England (in spiteful contempt for protocol) and who tries to live like a queen herself on the taxpayer dime.

      They are stuck with a long list of presidential failures, a cadre of communist and socialist radicals running the country, high unemployment far greater than the statistics show, job loss, business loss, and a nation increasingly cynical about the pie-in-the-sky promises of the miracles of lavish government spending and crippling government debt.

      All they have is bread and circuses—-handouts to buy votes and the 21st Century version of bloodletting, the Politics of Personal Destruction.

      And all they can hope for is being able to keep the plates spinning, the smoke and mirrors cranking full blast, and no one getting a good peek behind the curtain, till after the election.

      • Amazona August 10, 2012 / 2:32 pm

        I notice that stumpy ignored the gist of the above post, focused so intently on how much money someone else made.

        Guess the other points were too, uh, POINTED to comfortably address.

        BTW, have you noticed the particularly ugly way the Lefties here describe themselves? Eeeuuuwwwww. I mean, I’m sure it is all accurate, and quite a reflection on how they see themselves, but still…..eeeuuuwwww.

        And it’s probably an improvement over how others see them……

  9. GMB August 10, 2012 / 12:31 pm

    I still remember the crest fallen looks on the faces of the msm’ers the night The Great One routed jimmuh. I suspect that fellow maddow and his cohorts faces will look the same come the night of November 6.

    Keep believing those polls. All will be well.

  10. bloodypenquinstump August 10, 2012 / 1:22 pm

    “thinking that as long as your income is legal and as long as you are paying all the taxes you are supposed to pay what you earn is nobody’s damned business IS pretty sinister to the Loony Left”

    It is no ones business if you aren’t running for president. Mittens is running so he can release them and let everyone know what an honest and standup guy he is, or he can keep it secret and let everyone speculate about what he is hiding. He seems to think that he can do as he pleases, and he can, he will just lose the election. I think he is the perfect candidate for showing how the other half lives. So when it is shown that he paid a smaller percentage of taxes than most people he will have a hard time saying he needs another tax break, which is all the conservatives have economically.

    • Cluster August 10, 2012 / 1:36 pm

      Romney has released all the information required by law, and the same number of years of tax returns as McCain did in 2008, and McCain has vast wealth too, but ironically, I don’t remember this being an issue back then. You don’t suppose it’s because it’s the only thing democrats have to run on right? I mean after all, if I was Obama, I certainly wouldn’t want to have to run on my record.

      • Dvindice August 11, 2012 / 8:20 am

        Romney is rich, white and a Republican. That is all the rabid proggies need to hate him. And he is running against a man that promised that if the unemployment rate was over 6%, he would not run for a 2nd term.

    • Cluster August 10, 2012 / 1:37 pm

      I also don’t recall John Kerry’s wealth being an issue and he actually did avoid paying taxes on his yacht.

      bloody, you are comically transparent.

    • Amazona August 10, 2012 / 1:45 pm

      Thank you so much for exposing the hope as well as the ignorance of lemmings such as you.

      The hope is, as I suspected, finding that Romney paid only 15% tax on most if not all of his income. The ignorance is that this is somehow unfair—the “ignorant” part being the need for investment and capital gains income to be taxed at a lower rate to spur investment and keep money flowing.

      The rabble will howl at the gates that investment and capital gains income should be taxed as regular income, totally ignorant of the chilling effect a high capital gains and investment tax would have on an already faltering economy. They have no idea of how private investment fuels economic growth, or what the impact would be of slashing that investment.

      Little econ lesson, stumpy:

      Investments are made with after tax income. Following so far? So if a person has earned a significant amount of money he has already paid income tax on it as earned income, at the highest rate.

      He then chooses to RISK that after-tax income by investing in someone else’s company. He takes this RISK because he knows that if his gamble pays off and the investment earns money, he will be taxed on the return on his already-taxed investment at a lower rate than he had to pay on the original income. This offsets the RISK of losing the money completely. And he is still being taxed twice.

      It also fuels economic growth because the businesses in which he invests now have more capital with which to expand and grow. “Expand and grow” is code for “hiring more people” and “paying more taxes”.

      The teeny tiny minds which cannot possibly grasp anything more complex that “15% is less than the 39% we want” will continue to carry on with their silly and ignorant wails of “UNFAIIIIIIRRRRRR!!!” while the economically savvy just laugh at them.

      As we laugh at you.

      Well, snicker is more like it.

      Another example of your gross ignorance is exhibited here: “….when it is shown that he paid a smaller percentage of taxes than most people he will have a hard time saying he needs another tax break…”

      Uh, DUH, dummy—-no one is asking for a reduction of interest and capital gains taxes, which is what you morons are squealing about anyway.

      The only way Romney’s tax rate is, as you complain, “…a smaller percentage of taxes than most people ..” is if it is from interest and/or capital gains, which would not be affected by refusing to raise taxes on upper income levels.

      Nicely done, stumpy. No one can highlight your ignorance and stupidity better than you do yourself.

      • Cluster August 10, 2012 / 1:53 pm

        Nice try Amazona and well said, but I am pretty sure you lost stumpy at “Investments are made with after tax income” – I am sure her eyes glazed over after that comment.

      • Amazona August 10, 2012 / 2:10 pm

        Speaking of capital gains, I have run this past several realtors, who have all said that this one act alone would have headed off much if not most of the housing collapse, at a far smaller cost.

        That is, a simple quick law stating that any profit made at any time in the future on any real estate bought in a short sale or in foreclosure would never be taxed.

        This simple law would have brought private money into the housing market and kept most of the foreclosures off the market.

        If Joe Blow could have invested $80,000 in a house that had been sold for $140,000 a couple of years earlier, and could anticipate selling it for at least $100,000 within four or five years, with no tax on his profit, it would be a good risk for him, and in the meantime he could rent the house back to the current residents for the same amount they were paying on the first stage of their adjustable rate mortgage and have that income stream as well. The lure of untaxable income would have brought in private investors.

        And we all know this would have been completely unacceptable to the Loony Left, who would have done even more howling at letting the market solve the problem instead of turning it over to government, even though the government couldn’t do a thing without spending billions.

      • Cluster August 10, 2012 / 5:12 pm

        That could have been a key component to a quicker recovery. As it is, cap gains are set to increase in 2014. Not good because there will still be a lot of distressed inventory.

      • dbschmidt August 11, 2012 / 12:34 am

        Another point is most of the fiscally simple folks (mostly lefties) do not realize is that when capital; gains and dividends rate increases it will disproportionately affect seniors and those with a pension (eg. Firefighters, Police, Teachers, etc.) which they (RRL) practically puke over trying to tell us how much they care.

    • Amazona August 10, 2012 / 1:53 pm

      The stumpys WILL speculate, because this is really all they are capable of.

      Understanding the actual ideologies of each side, evaluating them, comparing them and their records of successes and failures, and making objective and rational decisions based on understanding and analysis would be WAAYYYYYYYY too much to ask of them.

      But petty speculation about the private lives of others, and inventing sinister and hateful motives and actions, is right up their collective alleys. It’s what they do, because it’s all they CAN do. It’s how small minds work.

      The Obama base “thinks” this way, reducing the very important decision of the best way to govern the nation to nothing more than backbiting and petty gossip and spasms of irrational liking or loathing.

  11. Cluster August 10, 2012 / 2:00 pm

    Good article over at American Thinker – not for you bloodystump, it’s way to close to home:

    Based on his previous campaigns, it’s clear that Obama is quite comfortable with personal attacks on his opponents. From opening sealed divorce records to lies about extramarital affairs, Obama’s winning mojo has been to tear the other guy down with false personal attacks while declaring that Obama himself has nothing to do with the accusations.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/why_obama_thought_going_toxic_was_a_no-lose_strategy.html#ixzz23ARHnlBx

  12. bloodypenquinstump August 10, 2012 / 2:09 pm

    Clutch your pearls everyone someone is disagreeing with your idiocy. This is politics, Mittens is claiming he is a good choice because of his business genius, lets see his genius. He doesn’t want to though, hiding it is better in his mind than releasing it. Seems like he would be proud of his ‘earnings’.

    • Amazona August 10, 2012 / 2:13 pm

      Hey, your own Boy Wonder is touting Romney’s genius in his own TV ads, claiming that Romney is so smart that he could buy up a company and then close it down and still make more than $90 million dollars per deal.

      Let’s see you flying monkeys do THAT!

    • Amazona August 10, 2012 / 2:14 pm

      Seems like Barry would be proud of his ‘grades’ and the ‘papers’ he wrote to justify his position on the Law Review.

    • Amazona August 10, 2012 / 2:26 pm

      Romney does not use his personal income to explain his business skills, but the businesses he saved and help grow into vital contributors to the economy and the jobs they created.

      Find us a quote where he says “vote for me because of how much money I made .

      We’ll wait.

      In the meantime you can try to explain how, when Bain would buy up two or three or four businesses that were ALL failing, and combine them into one larger and more successful business, saving at least some of the jobs instead of having all the businesses go under, that was a bad thing.

      The simple-minded approach is based on Magical Thinking—that if Bain had just stayed out of it, all of the businesses would somehow, magically, have rallied and no jobs would have been lost at all. And then there would have been free unicorn rides and chocolate kisses and rainbows shining out their donkeys.

      • Cluster August 10, 2012 / 2:32 pm

        I am pretty sure Obama got into Columbia with foreign student aid. Now I can’t prove it, but now that the accusation is out there, wouldn’t it be incumbent upon him to prove me wrong? I think so.

      • Amazona August 10, 2012 / 3:46 pm

        And under what name?

      • Count d'Haricots August 10, 2012 / 5:09 pm

        I guess I don’t understand; according to stumpy Romney could demonstrate his business acumen by virtue of his income. But aren’t these the same people that insist he “didn’t build that”? Or, in full context; “if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.

        It appears to me that neither stumpy nor casper would be swayed into believing that Romney’s income is proof of success by his own wits, work or ability so what’s the point of producing income records that the intellectually challenged casper or the rationality deficient stumpy could neither understand nor appreciate?

        No, the plan is simple actually.

        I sat on a jury (foreman) in a shoplifting case. The defense attorney questioned the Security Agent about the videotape evidence proving his client guilty. The Agent explained that he personally witnessed the theft, and that because he was the only Agent working at the time, there was no one to run the surveillance equipment while the Agent and the perp were both on the sales floor; there was no security tape.

        The defense attorney asked the police officer about the surveillance video, he asked the company representative, the attending physician at intake in the jail, the witnesses who testified about the apprehension and the salesgirl at the checkout that was knocked down as the perp attempted to flee the store. Everyone told the lawyer they had no knowledge of any video.

        Anything to deflect attention from his obviously guilty client.

        Once in the jury room I was astounded when 10 of my fellow jurors were reluctant to vote guilty because “Walmart won’t let us see that video tape.” (It took me 4 hours to convince those sheep to vote guilty.)

        Before the cerebrally defied libiots drop their sputum, Romney’s tax forms exist they’re just irrelevant and we all know that.

        Whatever takes the focus off of Obama’s dismal record.

  13. bloodypenquinstump August 10, 2012 / 4:31 pm

    I’m glad we all agree, more information from candidates is better, therefore let the tax returns freely roam the land.

    • neocon1 August 10, 2012 / 5:04 pm

      bloodypump

      47% pay NO federal taxes maybe mitt is one of them….OH wait that would make him an innercity donk.

      smoke screen to protect the marxist muslim usurper gay community agigator never was from his own record….Oh wait that is sealed also!!

    • Amazona August 10, 2012 / 6:57 pm

      stumpy, you want information, right?

      OK, let’s start with the guy who is already in office and has been for nearly four years.

      What do we NOT know about him?

      1. In how many nations has he claimed citizenship?
      2. Under what nation’s passport did he travel to Pakistan?
      3. How did he get into Occidental College when he had admittedly poor high school grades?
      4. Under what name did he attend Occidental College?
      5. What citizenship did he claim when he attended Occidental College?
      6. Did he have any kind of financial aid as a foreign student while at Occidental College?
      7. What were his grades at Occidental College?
      8. Who paid for his schooling at Occidental College?
      9. How did he get into Columbia?
      10. What were his classes at Columbia?
      11. What were his grades at Columbia?
      12. Under what name did he attend Columbia?
      13. Did he receive any financial aid as a foreign student at Columbia?
      14. How did he qualify for admittance to Harvard Law School?
      15. What were his grades at Harvard?
      16. What papers did he write while at Harvard?
      17. What were his qualifications for becoming head of the Law Review?
      18. How many times did he have to take the bar exam?
      19. Does he still have a license to practice law?
      20. Why did he delay producing proofs of his birth in Hawaii?
      21. Why did he have surrogates produce the documents that were finally produced? Was this to avoid eventual prosecution?
      22. How deeply involved was he in the plan to provide deadly weapons to one Mexican drug cartel to assist them in dominating the drug market in Mexico?

      There. That’s a start.

      Now, as to what we don’t know about Mitt Romney:

      1. What is his favorite breakfast cereal?
      2. What is his favorite color?
      3. How much money did he make in 2009, 2008, 2007?
      4. Did he pay the taxes he legally owed on this income?
      5. What was the tax rate on this income?

      Since one man is already in office there is obviously more urgency in learning about him, while Romney hasn’t even been officially nominated yet.

      You can start answering now, please.

      • Count d'Haricots August 10, 2012 / 7:06 pm

        “head of the Law Review?”

        He was President of Law Review; a position selected by the other editors, not based on scholastic or academic achievement. A popularity contest. It’s on Harvard’s Website.

      • Amazona August 10, 2012 / 7:28 pm

        Sorry. I stand corrected, on terminology and qualifications. My ex sister in law was something-or-other on the Yale Law Review and it was based on accomplishment and merit.

        Your comment explains a lot, as it clears up why a fellow classmate said that word had come down on high that the Law Review needed a minority which is why they looked to Obama. But even then I didn’t realize it was more of a popularity contest than an achievement.

      • Count d'Haricots August 10, 2012 / 7:28 pm

        Things the Press wants to know about Romney:
        1) When did Romney stop beating his wife?
        2) When did Romney stop beating his children?
        3) How many of Romney’s children are actually his?
        4) How much of Romney’s Million$ were stolen?
        5) Why does Romney hate Blacks & Hispanics?
        6) How did Romney engineer the failure of companies run by Bain?
        7) When did Romney give up his Mexican citizenship?
        8) How many secret wives does Romney have?
        9) Where are the children from Romney’s mistresses?
        10) How does the Mormon Church communicate Romney’s daily orders?
        11) Why did Romney’s father try to disown Romney?
        12) How many babies does Romney eat in a week?
        13) Does Romney ever wash his “Magic Underwear”?

      • Count d'Haricots August 10, 2012 / 7:36 pm

        Harvard has many Law Review editors, unlike most Law Schools that have one Editor of Law Review (my brother and best friend were both Editors of their schools Law Review). An Editor of Law review is normally the most qualified, best representative the Law school can put out front. These Editors are read and quoted in Courtrooms across the country.

        Because Harvard is “special” and entirely run by students, they select a “President” from their many editors who doesn’t edit submissions but must give “final approval” to all publications. It’s a figurehead position that has some administrative authority.

        Obama wrote no scholarly pieces nor reviewed any law … ever! His real place in Harvard History is that he is the first and only Law Review President in Harvard’s history to not author even one single article.

      • Count d'Haricots August 10, 2012 / 7:45 pm

        Oh, and word has it that Obama was selected President because his syntax and diction was so poor, other than being opinionated he was of little value to the review and edit process.

        Here’s an example of Obama’s writing skills while at Harvard:
        “Since the merits of the Law Review’s selection policy has been the subject of commentary for the last three issues, I’d like to take the time to clarify exactly how our selection process works.”

        “Approximately half of this first batch is chosen … the other half are selected … ”

        “No editors on the Review will ever know whether any given editor was selected on the basis of grades, writing competition, or affirmative action, and no editors who were selected with affirmative action in mind.”
        UNreadable!

        Smartest man in America! HA!

    • Amazona August 10, 2012 / 7:00 pm

      Oh, I thought of some more questions for Obama

      23. When and where did he register for Selective Service?
      24. When and where did he apply for his Social Security card?
      25. When and where did he officially change his name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Obama?

    • neocon1 August 10, 2012 / 5:06 pm

      Booosh

      Baaaain

      Blaaaaaa blaaaaaa blaaaa

      Taaaaaaaaaax

      Soros, marx, mao, Ubama…..communists, anarchists, union thuge, domestic terrorists, dope, drugs, limo rides

      BFD!!

      • Count d'Haricots August 10, 2012 / 5:15 pm

        Yep, the sheeple of the Left require fictional TV characters to explain asset management and financial services companies to them.

        No wonder “Success” is a foreign concept to these leftest-lemmings.

      • neocon1 August 10, 2012 / 5:16 pm

        Christie
        one more nail…..

        New Jersey Quits RGGI, Bans Coal Plants

        assault rifles?
        I have mine FOR the very reason they were designed.
        I have seen every major city burned, looted, murder, mayhem, mobs rampaging through neighborhoods for the last fifty years.

        New Orleans was a prime example of what happens when uneducated, welfare looters and drones are left to fend for themselves when the plantation collapses.

        The Koreans stood their ground during the rodney king rampage and NO ONE looted and burned them out…..mine are not for hunting make no mistake about it they are to protect my home, family, neighborhood from howling, mad dog mobs who want OPM and property in time of emergency.

        LOCK n LOAD!!

      • neocon1 August 10, 2012 / 5:20 pm

        count

        hey welfare, FREE school and OPM does not make them wise, only thieves.
        gotta love NONE of them pay taxes, and the whole donk party is littered with tax cheats, buy ONLY ROMNEY’s tax returns matter.
        they are like talking to a turd, brain dead and smelly.

      • Count d'Haricots August 10, 2012 / 5:24 pm

        I have never understood why it is greed to want to keep the money you’ve earned, but not greed to want to take someone else’s money.

        Tomas Sowell.

      • dennis August 11, 2012 / 12:03 am

        Bean counter: “I have never understood why it is greed to want to keep the money you’ve earned, but not greed to want to take someone else’s money” – Tomas Sowell.

        “The money you’ve earned” vs “someone else’s money”. How exactly to define those terms may be the rub. Some people might argue that leveraged money is not the same as earned money. Or that the definition of “earned” has nuances. For instance, when one’s income derives largely from interest and dividends, as opposed to the daily sweat of another’s brow, who has most “earned” it? Should dividends be subject to less tax, or greater tax, than salary or hourly wages?

        I’m guessing the one who sweats it on a daily basis might feel they’ve earned it more than one who cruises through life on dividends (which in a sense is “other people’s money”) and the other guy shouldn’t get a larger tax break, but a smaller one. But that’s just a guess – I could be wrong. These days that working stiff might be a Republican who feels the wealthy are innately superior (that richie might be a rare ivory-billed job creator, or some other exotic species) and should be rewarded with even greater tax breaks and financial advantages.

        And greed of course is a whole nother concept in need of essential definition. Thomas Sowell’s quote as you present it lacks definitions and doesn’t take in all the possibilities, so it’s of extremely limited relevance.

      • dbschmidt August 11, 2012 / 12:46 am

        Dennis,

        You are one dumb SOB that one can not respond to until you learn the very basics of the monetary system. Here is a hint. One has to earn the money first (standard tax rate) before one can invest it and receive dividends and capital gain.

        BTW, whiz kid–who is going to be hurt the most by increasing the tax rate (in points) on capital gains & dividends? George Soros or those who rely on them as retirement income?

  14. bloodypenquinstump August 10, 2012 / 6:34 pm

    “47% pay NO federal taxes maybe mitt is one of them….OH wait that would make him an iINNERCITY donk.”

    Just say what you really think, quit hiding behind “innercity” like a coward.

    • Count d'Haricots August 10, 2012 / 7:00 pm

      Tell us, what do you think neo believes … just who makes up 47% of the adult population for whom neo might be using “code Words”? Huh?

      Put up or shut up cowards.

    • neocom1 August 11, 2012 / 3:52 pm

      bloodypump
      liberal marxist donks….OK?

Comments are closed.