Sarah Palin and Jim Brandenstine: 21st Century Patriots

Sarah-Palin-FoxSenator John McCain was among the 14 Republicans [voters should not reelect any of them] who backed the immigration bill in the Senate, which is not faring well [thank goodness] “as written” in the House. Senator McCain is from Arizona, which is one of the states hit most hard in the Mexican invasion across a border our government cannot [will not] secure, the same government whose military has secured the border [DMZ] between North and South Korea for well over 50 years. Sarah Palin has called him and other GOP RINOs to the carpet.

Sarah Palin was the vice presidential running mate in 2008 with Senator McCain. She was more qualified to be the presidential candidate, despite her newness to the Babylon atmosphere of Washington, DC. She is a favorite speaker and travels about all over the country. She is a sassy out-spoken person who, like when she became governor of Alaska, is not afraid to speak out against Republicans who do not tow the constitutional line.

Continue reading


Romney File: Second Debate

While Mitt Romney is doing well in Virginia, a state that got Obama elected in 2008 because of support of Marxist college youth, who most likely will not vote for him this election.
Romney was mediocre in the second debate and not because he couldn’t answer questions with clarity or truthfulness, but because he did not show how untruthful Obama was. Romney lost it once in a heated face-to-face argument with Obama, but truthfully I could not have held back as well as he did; especially when Obama literally called him a liar. Speaking of lying …

During the first two years in the White House, Barack Obama had majority in House and Senate, not requiring a single Republican vote to pass his ObamaCare, which the Supreme Court unlawfully called constitutional. I have written to the Supreme Court an inquiry as to what article in the Constitution gives Congress the power to control private sector health care insurance, or for that matter, taking over private businesses like GM in a bailout deal. No answer from them and other sources I inquired for constitutional sources.

In 2008, Obama lied to Hispanic voters and two-thirds of that minority voted for him. I certainly hope they have come to their senses this election. Hopefully Romney will not play the same cards as GW Bush on this one.
Romney missed a chance to put down Obama with truth in the subject of energy. He neglected to mention that Obama has been on a campaign to destroy the coal industry, cut leases on federal land for crude oil, and spent billions of tax dollars investing in solar and wind companies whose only credentials were they supported Obama in 2008.
On the subject of the price of gasoline, more expensive now than in 2009, Obama was not put to task on his stupid answer to the question presented by Candy Crowley, whose bias was obvious. Despite the rule of no cheering or booing at this debate, Michelle Obama led a big cheer when Crowley bent the rules of moderator and took sides with Obama as though she was part of the debate. It was between Obama and Romney.
Romney messed up by letting Obama get away with the Planned Parenthood rhetoric when he stated that it provides cancer screening. It does not, but do refer to places they can perform such tests. Planned Parenthood is nothing more than the world’s largest infanticide organization, courtesy of taxpayer dollars. Your tax dollars that go to this program pays for someone else’s abortion – not because they were raped or their health is in danger, just because they are free and irresponsible in their sex habits. Like my sister once observed: “People that cannot afford it have the most children”.
Romney did not give a good response to the opposition of Obama to free market enterprise.
Romney did mention that the middle class, tagged with too many tax burdens in the past four years – giving credit to what Joe Biden stated the week before during his clown act as VP.
Romney failed to point out that General Motors bailout only helped the trade union, screwed over the bondholders and non-union members who lost up to 40% of their retirement funding and the fact that GM has more industry in China than the United States.
Romney’s best statement was about his five-point plan for restoring America. At least he HAS a plan.
Romney should have studied Ronald Reagan’s debates when he would use the opponent’s untruths against him beginning with the phrase: “There you go again”.
The most telling part of the second debate is not the pattering back and forth, but the testament to Obama’s lies, and proof of America’s media bias and manipulation in the actions of “moderator” Candy Crowley.
And, as Burt Prelutsky so aptly put it:

If Obama had actually described the attack on our Libyan consulate as a terrorist act, why would he have sent out UN Ambassador Susan Rice five days later on five different Sunday news shows to lay the blame on some dumb video? And why would Obama go to the UN a week later and blame the murder of four Americans on that same video?  For that matter, why would Jay Carney deny the true nature of the attack for two entire weeks, pretending that they needed an FBI investigation to get to the bottom of things, when the consulate cameras and Ambassador Stevens’ own journal told us everything we needed to know about the non-existent demonstration that allegedly led up to the al-Qaeda attack. And, finally, why 30 days after 9/11, was smarmy Joe Biden still lying about what had taken place in Libya during his debate with Paul Ryan?

These are things that Romney should have been armed to deliver against Obama’s untruths. As far as Ms. Crowley  no one should be surprised. The media has been covering Obama’s ass for four years, and the political left has not mustered one anti-war demonstration that was so prolific during the GW Bush administration.
Once upon a time a young man named Barry, later first name Barack, was hired to fill an executive position, and after discovering that he did not have the necessary skills to handle the job, he was fired. When called into the office to be told he was fired, Barry, alias Barack accused him of racism. Yet, Barry was hired because of his skin pigmentation and ethnic background, but fired because he couldn’t handle the job.
That little tale accurately describes the presidency of Barrack Hussein Obama, alias Barry Soetro. It is also a demonstration how the Affirmative Action policy was weak in usefulness. To be guaranteed the right to seek an employment position no matter what race, gender, et cetera is rightful. However, to hire someone not eligible or qualified and just because of his or her race, gender, et cetera is abominable. It also does not afford the qualified individuals opportunity.
Apparently, Obama is a “Do as I say, Not as I Do” fellow because women working for him in the White House are paid less than their male counterparts.
Let these revelations be your guide on November 6th. Don’t forget to weed out congressional members that are not abiding their oath of office and voting for unconstitutional legislation – regardless of the bias Supreme Court decision. Those decisions are made on a case-to-case basis and that is the job of the justices. It is not their job to “interpret” the Constitution in a matter than coincides with their personal beliefs or the pressure from special interest and political groups. The judiciary branch does not have, or supposed to have, legislative power. Just because a case is decided does not mean their decision becomes law. That is ruling from the bench – and it is high time that the Supreme Court Justices be informed just exactly what their constitutional duties are – or retire. The Check-and-Balance system of the government branches were not set in place for looks.
All of these changes cannot be made with Obama and friends in office. 
I hope Romney remembers just why people voted for him.

Mitt Romney Shows True Self – Moderate-RINO, Not Constitutionalist-Reformer

Mitt Romney’s performance as a candidate for the President of the United States is just as I suspected and feared.
He has been and always will be a moderate – too indecisive to be a servant of the people of the United States as a supporter of the Constitution of the United States, and why the GOP bosses (establishment) pushed him as their “poster boy” candidate.

As Chris Cillizza observed at Morning Fix, Washington Post:

In a speech Wednesday night at the University of Miami, Moderate Mitt Romney reared his head. In the course of a single night, Romney said:
* On his “47 percent” comment: “This is a campaign about the 100 percent.”
* On health care: “Now and then, the president says I’m the grandfather of Obamacare. I don’t think he meant that as a compliment, but I’ll take it.”

* On immigration: ”I said I’m not in favor of a deportation — a mass deportation effort rounding up 12 million people and kicking them out of the country.”
* On gay marriage: “I would like to have the term ‘marriage’ continue to be associated with a relationship between one man and one woman, and that certainly doesn’t prevent two people of the same gender living in a loving relationship together having gay domestic partnership, if you will.”

Concluded NBC’s “First Read” of Romney’s remarks: “Last night was the candidate many of us expected to start seeing in June or July, not in September — it was the Romney of 2004.” We’ve long wondered when the centrist Romney might emerge — particularly as his statement on the protests in Libya and even his initial handling of the “47 percent” video seemed driven by a “reassure the base” strategy that, to our mind, is almost entirely unnecessary. Polling suggests that the conservative base is — and has been almost since the moment he became the GOP nominee — strongly behind Romney. Heck, even Bill Clinton doesn’t think the Romney-as-flip-flopper narrative will work.

It would be naïve of me to ignore the fact that politics is just as much a strategy game as football. However, can the Tea Party movement and citizens who demand a constitutional government of which moderate does not apply – the Constitution of the United States is foremost above all political compromise – are back-stabbed, again.
However, the question can be:
Is Romney moving central to obtain votes from the 47 percent, and then do what conservatives chose him to do, and be strong to carry it out once President of the United States? His past record of indecisiveness and not sticking to the guns, more worried about pleasing everyone and end up pleasing no one is showing. It is why the Obama percentage is so close, and if polls are correct, may exceed that of Romney. He will lose the election just as he did in the past in the primary election and for the same reasons. Moreover, it is not for telling the truth about the 47 percent.
Cillizza also makes another valid and truthful point:

Romney is tonally [totally] a moderate. While he — like virtually every politician who has managed to rise to such a high level — has been required to adjust some of his policy positions to suit the party base, Romney’s natural inclination is to be the problem-solver in the room, not the partisan warrior. And, the more a politician can be publicly who they actually are at their core, the better chance they have of winning.

Cillizza also is testimony of what I have accused of the political campaigns of last couple do decades to date:

… the RNC has a $76.6 million to $7.1 million advantage over the Democratic National Committee — more than 10-to-1. The money virtually assures that Republicans will far outspend Democrats down the stretch in the presidential race, especially when you add in outside groups.

This represents the atmosphere of elections today. It is not the ideology and/or what a candidate stands for that is paramount, but how much campaign cash is available in deciding the winner – or vote for – directly or indirectly. Huge amounts of cash is because it is expensive to advertise negative campaigning, ads that make the other guy look like dirt. The issues either remain watered down or obscure, like what Obama meant in 2008 about “Change We Can Believe In” scheme.
However, the problem with Cillizza is that you read in his articles all the bungling, negativity, and somewhat objective remarks about Romney – but not equally with Obama.
This does not give the Washington Post good marks on their media report card in terms of objectivity and fair reporting and opinion columns in dealing with Election 2012. 
Ron Paul is needed as always has been needed. 

Election 2012: Facts and Presidential Debate Schedule

For those who are having difficulty making up their minds, and for those who post signs: OBAMA THEN AND OBAMA NOW – who also posted signs in 2008: CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN – here are the facts about his term in office. It is not Republican rhetoric.

  • The debt of the United States has grown to $16 trillion dollars – the largest total in the history of the United States.
  • Unemployment has remained over 8% for 43 straight months – a first since the Great Depression. The real unemployment rate – taking into account those who are disillusioned and lost hope, stopped looking for work or are working part-time, but want more work – almost 15% .
  • The Office of Management and Budget reported that the Obama administration has presented over $4 trillion annual budget deficits


Two Peas in a Pod

    2012 Presidential & VP Debate:

    October 3rd 9pm Eastern time: Domestic Issues

    October 11th9pm Eastern time: Vice Presidential Debate on Foreign and Domestic Issues
    October 16th9pm Eastern time: Presidential Town Hall Meeting on Foreign and Domestic Issues
    October 22nd9pm Eastern time: Presidential Debate on Foreign Issues

    Discussing the Forty-Seven Percent Issue – Rationally

    The big hullabaloo the media is pushing concerns a video that Mother Jones magazine heartily made available on the Internet, which instantly went viral. The remarks were made at a closed-session strategy meeting held by Mitt Romney in May of 2012, transcribed as follows:

     All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.  That’s an entitlement.  And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what… And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49 … he starts off with a huge number.  These are people who pay no income tax.  Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax.  So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect.  So he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.

    How angry the progressives are for Romney making such a remark! How dare he face reality!

    All over the primary statement that 47% of Americans DO NOT PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.
    Fact: They do pay the taxes, forced from their payroll checks all year long – then at the end of the year, beginning following year – they get it all back courtesy of the confusing deduction allowance mostly based upon entitlements.
    Fact: Americans, apparently most of those 47%, demand entitlements. Those entitlements neither are not within constitutional rights nor within the limitations of Congress set forth by the Constitution of the United States. In effect, the income tax system itself is unconstitutional – a direct tax removed from your paycheck without your permission or agreement from wages YOU earned, not the government.
    In this election, we have seen and heard how Mitt Romney is attacked for being a wealthy American – money he earned through smart investing and business savvy. That savvy could certainly be applied to what is wrong with America economically combined with the recommendations of Rep. Ron Paul in that the Federal Reserve system be audited and revamped, as well as the tax system be overhauled. The least reform of the tax system would to place a flat tax on income for all citizens (plus social security and Medicare payments) with NO deductions and simple post card paperwork at end of year.
    In this election, there is much criticism of Romney, but little attention to Obama’s job performance by the media over the last four years.
    I mentioned in a previous article that Chris Cillizzain his opinion article at Washington Post entitled Mitt Romney’s Darkest Hour – written with an atmosphere of doom over the Republican candidate.
    According to Newsmax, using a WSJ/NBC poll, Obama has a 5-point edge over Romney.
    I guess this could be possible – mainstream media has become a major political tool for the Democrats. Ignoring Obama’s transgressions or downplaying them, while pinpointing any negativity they can find about Romney.
    It is a perfect object for the media to focus upon and ignore evidence that points toward negligence on the part of Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the September 11thembassy attacks. This may also make disappointed conservative voters on edge because many think that Romney’s campaign is weak. Many are also doubtful that he will stick to what Americans want and need – a serious reform in our federal government. There was a decisive candidate, a constitutional candidate, in the primary elections – but too many ignore him, the media made him look the fool, and the GOP elite establishment thought he is “too radical”. Ron Paul would have torn huge holes in Obama’s propaganda machine. Romney failed at the last shot for presidential candidate because it seem he: (a) cannot sustain constant fire from media and progressives; and (b) has a record of indecision and trying to please everyone instead of just doing the constitutional thing.
    There is no question that Romney is a man of good character. His personal life is impeccable. His business success is admirable. It takes fortitude to make a stand against those who enjoy making oranges from a cart of apples.
    Where was the pinpointing sarcasm of the media and pundit bloggers when Obama said this at a San Francisco fundraiser in 2008:

    It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

    Those remarks were made known as soon as they were made, not four months later. That remark plus the one about businesses could not operate without government are far more insulting than the truthful statement that 47% of Americans pay NO income tax.
    Obama has a small margin if one considers polls have any indication what voters will actually do. However, elections have been won by small margins before, and there is the matter of electoral votes. According to the media, Obama leads on those as well.
    I guess American voters are going along with the posters that read: OBAMA THEN OBAMA NOW.
    Romney’s campaign has had its jumps and starts since the primary elections. He certainly lacks the nifty slogans that Obama people come up with. 
    It is no wonder that skeptics call this his “darkest hour”. 
    It is why (one of the reasons) why I did not support him in the primary election, just like I didn’t support GW Bush when he ran in a primary election. It always seems that American voters are constantly forced to choose the best out of the worst.  
    Ron Paul is not popular because he has been dubbed a “libertarian”, like it was some evil word or a descriptive of a person who is nonsensical. The primary concern about Ron Paul as president is his stance on the long lasting advocacy against the federal drug war and citizens being arrested, indicted, and jailed for using marijuana for medical purposes. Ron Paul has been consistent when it comes to being a constitutionalist, a term that better describes him than a “libertarian-republican”.
    Now we have a choice between Romney and Obama, just as we had a choice between Bush II and Al Gore.
    The majority voters of Election 2008 provided Obama an opportunity to make good his promises and fix what Bush was blamed for – ignoring the fact that the Democrats held majority in Congress and there were too many RINOs as well.
    With the present tax system there are various ways to not pay income taxes, after the deductions are figured in, and while those same people pay other forms of taxes; it is a testimony toward the fact that Congress must either repeal the 16th amendment and replace the income tax system or make it a low flat tax with NO deductions. That means we will no longer hear the whiners complain about corporation welfare or that the middle class is getting screwed over by rich people. Everyone will pay the same rate. The beauty of the mathematics of percentages is that those who make more will pay more proportionally. Class welfare rhetoric solved – no more cry of “tax cuts for the rich” nonsense.
    However, as John Haywardwrote at Human Events:

    Much of the tax burden carried by people who don’t pay income taxes is invisible, by design. They don’t know about the layers of corporate tax built into the price of every product they buy, or the cost of regulations and mandates, which are taxes by other names.  Most working people don’t even think about the taxes withheld from their paychecks, which is one of the reasons America’s income tax slid smoothly and quickly from a small levy on the super-rich to a titanic growth-crushing burden that devours millions of hours of productivity just for compliance… and still doesn’t harvest enough loot to cover Washington’s extravagant spending.  A large volume of people in this country see themselves exactly the way Romney described them: they don’t think they’re paying much in the way of income taxes, so opposing tax cuts for other people is their default position. What really got Romney into trouble is the “my job is not to worry about those people” line. … Most media outlets seem uninterested in showing Romney’s full press conference – they’re mostly posting edited version of the conference that omit Romney’s strong prepared remarks, and relay only the subsequent Q&A session.
    ABC News is an honorable exception … As Romney noted, the entire quote was part of a political discussion, and when he said “my job is not to worry about those people,” he was very clearly referring to his campaign strategy: there’s no point in worrying about winning their votes, because he probably can’t. … Romney is also right to ask for the entire tape of his comments at the May fundraiser to be released, instead of just selected snippets.  The
    Washington Post transcribed more of those selected passages, and they make it abundantly clear Romney was offering a blunt discussion of campaign strategy
    Toast to Himself

    The five to ten percent of voters who continue to be starry-eyed for Obama are those who voted for them in 2008 – enthusiastically. They do not think Barack Obama is a failure, but they are disappointed with his policies that have not worked. They also do not want to admit being wrong about voting for him in 2008, despite overwhelming evidence that he and his cohorts are bad for America and corrupt as the trade unions they sponsor.
    The voters Romney was discussing in his strategy remarks are those voters who believe they voted for Obama for the right reasons, but he just failed to carry out his promises of fixing the bloated national debt and other issues.
    As Hayward wrote in his analysis:

    We live in a “progressive” world where an increasingly small percentage of Americans pay most of the burden of government… and they are routinely excoriated for their reluctance to pay even more.  Dependency on government really is creeping further into the “middle class,” as part of a long-term strategy to make them vote exactly the way Romney described them.  And everyone is paying a truckload of taxes they can’t even see, making the perception of “progressive” taxation and benefits even more powerful than the mathematical reality.

    What happened to the transparent government that Obama promised?

    If any of that bothers you, you absolutely must vote for Mitt Romney in 2012.  If none of it troubles you, there’s little chance you were going to vote for him anyway.  It really shouldn’t bother anyone to hear him offer confirmation that he understands this.  The American electorate is not well-served by moving an increasing volume of our political discussion off-limits.  Making everyone afraid to discuss such a wide range of subjects increases the sense that we’re locked on cruise control as we approach the edge of the fiscal cliff

    With the Chinese demonstrating against our embassy there, damaging an ambassador’s automobile, it seems that at home and abroad the world has gone mad. The Chinese are angry at the US over some dispute with China, which US administration decided not to get involved with. It seems these days everyone is angry at the United States and Americans seem to be indecisive as to who to believe when it comes to national leadership. 

    Editorial Note: Lighthouse Journal could use constitutionally-minded guest writers interested in “The Search for Truth in a Sea of Misinformation“.
    If you are interested, Email Me.
    Serious applicants need only apply.

    Romney and the Clandestine Video

    The New York Times and mainstream media is a campaign format for Obama, as Ben Stein noted in his Ben Stein’s Diaryentitled appropriately End Times.
    According to the Democrats and media, Mitt Romney is an evil man of wealth who wants to take social security away from people who paid for it all their working lives, is part of the war against women (despite being married to one), provide the wealthy (the Secretary of Treasury entered office owing back taxes to the IRS) and corporations more tax breaks (than Democrats dish out); and intends to put a bigger load on the middle class and small businesses. Yet, there are still signs across America in people’s front yards that read: OBAMA THEN OBAMA NOW. 

    Somehow, a hidden camera captured some remarks at a closed-door fundraiser earlier this year and someone passed it to the media. In the video, he identifies BH Obama supporters as victims and reliant on government handouts.
    Gary Sargent at Washington Post called it his contemptuous tone to nearly half of Americans. He stated it was Romney’s very bad leaked video and wrote an opinion entitled Why his Radicalism Matters. Radicalism? 
    Is it radical to get a handle on a runaway budget? 
    Is it radical to be realistic in that government can no longer afford its bloated bureaucracy or provide funds for foreign nations and peoples that we cannot afford? 
    Is it radical that America stand on its own when it comes to crude oil? 
    Is it radical that the Constitution is the basis for all legislation and acts of government – not the political agenda of politicians? 
    Is it radical to be more firm against those who commit murder and mayhem in the name of religion and jeopardize world peace and the safety of people all over the world?
    Is it radical to enforce immigration laws that are more lenient than the government of Mexico?
    Is it radical for the United States to not “tow the mark” for other nations, and instead be a leader among nations for truth, sovereignty and a model for a constitutional republic?
    How can the Democratic Party celebrate at a convention for a president that has not only not trimmed the national debt, but also raised it higher and more in dollars than GW Bush did in two terms? The US continues to provide aid to nations (Pakistan as one example) that are playing both sides of the fence in the war against Islamic fascists. Cater to the foundation of Islamic fanatical fundamentalists, the Muslim Brotherhood and allowing to operate their covert and subversive acts in the United States. A Secretary of State (and Obama) who joins the United Nations in disarming citizens around the world in the name of stopping arms traffic – yet, caters to the nations who are behind it by allowing those nations to be a part of the world assembly and its decisions. 
    Like the League of Nationsthat Woodrow Wilson initiated, the United Nations should be shut down or at least removed from US soil and told to plot Global domination elsewhere. Its corruptionhas been exposedseveral times. Even Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon calls for an end to UN corruption.
    The United Nations history looks like the history of the US Democrat(ic) Party, siding with corruption within trade unions and billionaires like George Soros
    Yet, Mitt Romney, a success in business, will be bad for America and is evil; ignoring his record (like not accepting salary as Governor of Massachusetts) at home and his work ethics. He stopped all business transactions to spend a week looking for a fellow employee’s missing daughter. His only drawback is that he does not have the fortitude to play the Democrat political game and stand more solidly on his plan to turn America’s economic situation around and tackle the huge national debt. If he does so with the success of his own business, I believe he could do it. The only thing I have against him is his past compromising behavior. The Constitution of the United States can never be compromised, only changed by ratified amendments, of which the 16th Amendment should be repealed and the tax system replaced – something that both sides of the political aisle have been ignoring for too long.
    With all the stark reality around them, initiated by GW Bush and then further enhanced by BH Obama, the “useful idiots” who call themselves Americans are like mushrooms – kept in the dark and fed manure.
    The off-hand remark, as Romney later stated, “off the cuff” and “not elegantly stated”.
    I say he was speaking the truth, but I would add that ALL Americans are victims of big government are some degree or circumstance.
    The video of Romney making those remarks originated with the notorious leftist Mother Jonesmagazine, formerly a Hippy magazine about living the style of self-sufficiency and commune living.  As were the Hippy demonstrations of the 1970s, it has been continued and operated and supported by Marxists across America.
    Romney, bless his soul, did not back off from his remarks when he was asked by reporters if – 

    he was worried that he had offended 47 percent of people he mentioned in the statement.

    The truth is this:
    • The tax system has not changed because there are not enough Americans speaking out, and that is because the aforementioned 47% are not the ones carrying the tax load. Instead, others are carrying that 47% portion of Americans tax load. Yes, they have money taken (without permission) from their paychecks, but at the beginning of the following year they get most of it back – some getting it all back, and thanks to the Democrats, some are getting more back than they put in.
    • Government “welfare” social programs, supposed to be designed to help citizens help themselves during financial setbacks and national disasters – not as permanent “sugar daddy” dependency of Big Government. Social Security is a program where citizens pay into it all their lives, set up like a retirement trust fund, which has been embezzled by Congress for decades. Medicare is supposed to be a retirement program so seniors can afford to receive health care – also paid into by forced removal from one’s paycheck. Both programs would have been better for citizens if it was set up into an established private investment program, and would serve the same purpose. Congress would not be able to get their hands upon it. This reformation has been proposed as an option for citizens to take. It is too late for those already receiving retirement checks or soon to do so – but it would improve the future seniors establishment of a solid retirement funding.
    If the Democrats say that the 47% is “offended” – they should not be so, and take responsibility for their own lives, not demanding that government commit legal thievery in the name of taxation and distributing income as they see fit or punishing a certain sector of the population through excessive taxation to accomplish social engineering. It all goes back to the idea that promising citizens something for “free” will get them their vote (and it appears to be working for 47%). The same principle applies to illegal immigrants who procure false identification or other means to illegally vote at the election polling places. Democrats know this, as well as the GOP establishment politicians – and use that to procure votes.
    Those of the 47% who think it is perfectly justified to punish the wealthy just because they have what the rest do not, is despicable and childish. Those politicians who promote such behavior or ideology do not belong in OUR government that was established with a unique and great document called the Constitution of the United States, and its amendments that make up the citizen’s Bill of Rights.
    No shame upon Romney, just upon the Democrats and the 47%.
    As Romney stated:

    My campaign is about helping people take more responsibility and becoming employed again, particularly those who don’t have work,” Romney said. “His whole campaign is based on getting people jobs again, putting people back to work. This is ultimately a question about direction for the country. Do you believe in a government-centered society that provides more and more benefits or do you believe instead in a free enterprise society where people are able to pursue their dreams?

    If the truth hurts, so be it. 
    Are the Democrats and the 47% offended because it is not true, or because it is true?
    What do YOU believe in? 

    Amazing: Newsweek Cover Story – "Hit the Road Barack"

    I was pleasantly surprised to see a Newsweek article written by Niall Ferguson that hit the cover page: Hit the Road, Barack: Why We Need a New President. Who wrote:
    In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.
    Indeed, the Democratic Convention falls into the same category: “pitiful”.  

    Media coverage? Ferguson wrote:

    Yet the public mistakes his administration’s astonishingly uninhibited use of political assassination for a coherent strategy. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, the civilian proportion of drone casualties was 16 percent last year. Ask yourself how the liberal media would have behaved if George W. Bush had used drones this way. Yet somehow, it is only ever Republican secretaries of state who are accused of committing “war crimes.
    BH Obama can do anything he wants.
    The latest, which I heard in a local radio editorial: Someone broke into the accounting firm where Mitt Romney’s records are and stole tax records. The culprit(s) attempt at blackmail against Romney for $1 million, failed. Passed to whoever received them, then turned over to the FBI. This brings a flashback when Obama was running against a Republican and someone broke into his sealed divorce records and made it public, courtesy of the unscrupulous media, and that is how BH Obama (then an unknown) got into public office. Then there was the case of publishing the social security number of Allen West in Florida, traced back to a Democrat political organization, and other unscrupulous campaign tactics against the former US Army colonel.
    There have been corrupt individuals in the Republican Party over its history, no doubt – but no political party can match the corrupt record of the Democratic Party of the United States.
    In this campaign, more than ever before, the Democratic propaganda machine is so boldly lying that anyone with minimal research can challenge their rhetoric and wild claims. What is scary is the amount of Americans who are still posting OBAMA THEN AND OBAMA NOW signs in their front yards, and others following the Democrats like the useful idiots they are. 
    Actually the Obama then and the Obama now are the same corrupt, unconstitutional socialist individual with a mysterious past filled with association with socialists, criminals, union thugs, and a former terrorist-now college professor in Chicago. Association does not apply, according to Democrats, unless you are a Republican. Hypocrisy.
    They will be like Woodrow Wilson, who finally awoke to see what he had done – when it is too late, and those blind followers will discover what corruption and deceit they have supported.Wilson, like Obama, was a progressive. Wilson, like Obama, is recorded in history as our worst presidents. We can thank Woodrow Wilson for Prohibition and the Federal Reserve system, a privately controlled entity that controls US money.
    For those of you who do not know it, I was a third generation Democratic Party person, and my father belonged to a trade union, off and on. In the 1980s, thanks to Ronald Reagan’s common sense and wisdom (who also left the Democratic Party) made me start researching everything said (on both sides of the political aisle) – with open eyes for the first time.
    Too often people state that political ideology is just opinion … however, we are not talking about color or fashion preference here – we are utilizing our freedom and rights of voting with false information if we do not research. Just because a candidate looks nice, speaks well, or whatever, is no “opinion” – it is like walking in a dark cave expecting to find one’s way out without light. Everyone has a right to their opinion (as many people say) – however, they do not have the right to make up facts or ignore them when it comes to who operates OUR government. If both candidates running were honest and a constitutionalist – then it would be a decision based upon comparison, scrutiny, and probably “opinion” on certain issues.
    Yet, not every issue is black and white, good or bad, or simple. Abortion, for example – The sociocrats tell us that women have the right to govern their own body, yet those same people will harass someone who smokes cigarettes and insist that they pay an exorbitant amount of tax to punish them. First, that is hypocrisy, plain and simple; and secondly, taxation is not to punish or segregate a portion of society – it is for FUNDING GOVERNMENT EXPENSES. Abortion is a decision that should be made between the woman and her doctor, and the decision does not just involve her body – but the termination of a living being that has its own body. This is where opinion and belief come in: I believe that abortion is acceptable when a woman has been raped. However, if we are to limit legal reasons for abortion, then we must reinstate government-operated orphanages once again. In addition, government should not be involved and taxpayers should not be required to fund abortions. Aborted infants equates to big money, sold for research. Where is legal and moral justification of taking an infant’s life because the mother acted irresponsible when it comes to birth control? If one examines this issue objectively, it comes to be a conundrum and then falls to opinions.
    Choosing candidates who want to operate OUR government should not be based upon opinions – just facts and ensure that the candidate is a constitutionalist, which means powers of government and those that operate it are limited according to the Constitution of the United States, not because of activist interpretation of Supreme Court Justices.
    Paul Ryan is running to be the Vice President of the United States, and he has a plan, not a hypocritical narrative. Ferguson wrote about this:
    The voters now face a stark choice. They can let Barack Obama’s rambling, solipsistic narrative continue until they find themselves living in some American version of Europe, with low growth, high unemployment, even higher debt—and real geopolitical decline. Or they can opt for real change: the kind of change that will end four years of economic underperformance, stop the terrifying accumulation of debt, and reestablish a secure fiscal foundation for American national security.  
    The choice is clear and simple, if only more Americans examined the facts and insist that candidates not just tell us what we already know, but how they are going to fix it. Those plans should be something workable, and different than what both sides of the political aisle have been doing over and over again – and still do not realize that they must examine issues more closely and learn from their mistakes.
    Socialism does not work economically. Socialism is a collective ideology, therefore, individual freedom and liberty is overridden. That is NOT what the Founders established. They established a democratic, constitutional republic of which was the first in the history of human civilization – and thus far has not been surpassed if it is followed. And, that, my friends, is the gist of what issues we face today. We the People have allowed those that operate OUR government to turn away from the Constitution and allowed Supreme Court Justices to legislate from the judicial bench by “interpreting” the articles and amendments of that document to coincide whatever they advocate, or the political entity they support. All have failed to comply with the sacred oath of their office in one degree or another, on both sides of the political fence. The Democrats have taken it to the extreme to where we will soon be following the national tragedies of European nations who did not emulate our constitutional republic, but instead thought they could create a working model of democratic socialism.
    The United States should be a leader of freedom, individual liberty, property rights – all that our Founders established – if they wish to be successful and truly free. We should not be adopting European ideology, constitutions, or nanny state policies – we should be sticking with what works: Constitution of the United States and its amendments.
    How much better we will be with Romney as president, I cannot foresee; however, I do know that viewing the policies and actions of Obama, we certainly cannot tolerate and should not tolerate another day with him in the Oval Office and his companions in the US Congress or the stooges in the Supreme Court.
    I have viewed Newsweek as a leftist media since Tina Brown took it over. It is astounding that such an article would appear, and more astounding that it was on the front cover.
    Could it be objectivity is creeping into the magazine once again?
    Or is it just that even Newsweekis disgusted with the Obama administration and socialist colleagues in Congress?
    We’ll have to keep an eye on that.
    Other Revelations:
    ABC Buries Story of Boos when “God” and Israel are Mentioned
    NY Times Bias – No Fact Checking for Clinton Speech [they “fact-checked” speeches of RNC]
    DNC adds planks to platform as Democrat loyalists’ popular opinion sees fit.
    Jodi MillerObama’s China and Democrat Convention is Over.

    Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.
    John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776