The Last Argument in His Arsenal

So, as you regular readers can point out over the last few posts, I've been following the election pretty closely. In my time following the race I've seen all manner of stupidity, leadership, downright evil, and desperation. Given that the trend is showing a severe backlash against the policies of the Won, that last one isn't surprising. Come to think of it, none of these are really surprising. Every campaign season we find out the best and worst of the candidates, 2008 being the obvious exception. The links above highlight my personal favorites this year, but if I were doing a top :insert number here: list, I'd definitely have to put the subject of this post at  the number one slot. Apparently, according to Hot Air, along with several other outlets, Obama the Above it All is offended that people are daring to suggest that he sat by and watched while four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Hear that? He's OFFENDED. Because how DARE reporters try to get to the bottom of the first murder of a US ambassador in decades?

According to Hot Air, who got the story from Breitbart:

The SecDef and the president have issued contradictory explanations. Either Mr. Obama ordered the Secretary of Defense to “do whatever we need to do,” or he didn’t. And either the secretary obeyed that order, or he didn’t. And he didn’t.

It is also not clear whether the SecDef countermanded the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who is the direct military adviser to the president. Did the president as commander-in-chief issue an unequivocal order that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs received but chose not to execute? Or did the chairman reply that he would do nothing?…

Surely it is in the president’s best interests to release a copy of his order, which the military would have sent to hundreds in the chain of command. And if the president did not direct the NSC “to do whatever we need to do,” then who was in charge? When the American ambassador is attacked and remains out of American hands for over seven hours as a battle rages — and our military sends no aid — either the crisis-response system inside the White House is incompetent, or top officials are covering up.

Like they say at the actual source, someone needs  to be fired. With the way the polls are going, it  looks like O is going to be that someone. I'm skeptical of his being punished beyond that, of course, but you  never know what'll happen these days. Only a few months ago I thought Romney wouldn't stand a chance as the candidate and he's proven me wrong rather handily on that score. 

I Wish I was This Articulate

I stole this from one of my Facebook friends, and had to share it both there and here at Confessions. Enjoy:

The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.
My confession:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees... I don't feel threatened.. I don't feel discriminated against.. That's what they are, Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a crèche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat...

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc.. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school... The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about.. And we said okay..

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit.

If not, then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,

Ben Stein

The Anti-Reykjavik: Obama's October Surprise not Really all That Surprising

Back in the 1980s, into Ronald Reagan's time as President of these United States of America, Ronaldus Maximus met with Premier Mikhail Gorbechev in Iceland for a nuclear proliferation summit. During that summit, it was revealed to The Great Communicator that he'd been swindled into almost negotiating away our only defense against Soviet nuclear aggression: The SDI Defense, which we all know now was just a bluff on our part to fool the Soviets into thinking we could shoot down their nuclear missiles with the touch of a button. It looks like we're not facing a similar situation here under the Obama administration with Iran playing the role of the Soviets. Ronald Reagan walked away. Obama intends to hear his own particular tyrant out. Here's why it won't work:

1. Too Little, Too Late:

The president appears to have played his trump card. Dick Morris predicted an October surprise coming up in a few days involving Iran and the United States negotiating a settlement regarding their nuclear program. Obama said once or twice during his campaign in 2008 that he would be more than happy to meet with Mahmud Ahmedenijad in order to avert the possibility of their gaining nuclear capability and thus having the power to wipe Israel off the map. Obama thought back then that his winning smile and not-so-killer good looks would be enough to make the mad Iranian Hitler wannabe back down, but all he did in response to Obama's appeasement was move further toward getting the very thing we didn't want them to get: nukes.

Now Obama has revealed this supposed trump card of his two weeks before the election. The timing alone is suspect, of course, but so is the motivation of both sides. Obama no doubt is using this as the usual "October Surprise" bit that usually comes out and turns the election around, or at the very least causes a hiccup in the opposing candidate's campaign efforts. It won't work this time for a  very simple reason. As stated above, it is simply too late to stop the Romney campaign's momentum with any   token gestures of effectiveness. With Romney up 6 in the latest Gallup poll (as of this writing) and only showing signs of further widening that lead (running positive ads in the swing states, Ryan campaigning in Western Pennsylvania, among others), the Obama campaign is looking more and more desperate with every stopgap measure they unveil. First it was Big Bird, then it was Binders Full of Women, and let's not even go into Tagg Romney supposedly wanting to punch the President in the face. As a certain comedian whose name escapes me at the moment said, "if he keeps this up, by next week he'll have to hurl actual sh!t."

2. We're on to him.

Tying into reason number one why this little October not surprise will only result in failure is reason number two. Quite simply, we the people are on to his little game of token gestures and class warfare, and there are too many of us who are now awake (or too many of those not awake who simply decided to vote for the other guy this time) to stem the tide. Obama can make all the diplomatic gestures he wants toward Iran, Saudi Arabia, and all those other countries, but he can't change the facts. Ambassador Chris Stevens is dead. Plain and simple. He was not only killed, but tortured before he was killed. This will stick in the minds of every reasonable American who knows about it. Obama can talk all he wants about how he'll divert a nuclear Iran from becoming a reality, but people like me know the real game being played here.

3. Dick Morris is Usually Right

Former Clinton advisor and Conservative  (former) Democrat Dick Morris told everyone that Obama had an October surprise up his sleeve that would involve Iran and negotiations with the U.S. to deal with their nuclear program. Just yesterday I found this piece from the New York Times as well as the video from Dick Morris himself explaining what he meant. Comparing the video and the NYT story, not to mention the several entries on this story at Hot Air, one can clearly see that Dick had this one right on the money. Not three days after he posted that video, this hits the front page of Hotair, along with this, and this, not to mention this from the New York Times. The second one of those is rather interesting to me, given that NO ONE is supposedly owning up to these talks when they come two weeks before election day? Makes me wonder if they're even really going to happen.

4. Glora Allred has her Own "October Surprise"...and it's a Year Old.

It's taken me a few days to actually get to a point where I can finish this post, so some of the above might have changed since then, but it's not likely. Still, one thing that DID come out was everyone's favorite ambulance chaser Gloria Allred announcing that she had another victim du jour under her hat that the  news sites all said she was planning on trotting out to try to put a stop to Romney's momentum. Apparently  when Romney was in his twenties (read thirty some years ago!) he vehemently tried to convince a woman not to have an abortion. No, you read that right. Glora Allred thinks that because Romney tried to convince a woman not to have an abortion because it wasn't in line with the tenants of his faith that he somehow is guilty of harassing said woman. I'm betting that if this does get trotted out for the news sites, it'll be an attempt to resurrect the "Romney is a Bully" narrative that they had going in the first weeks of the election. What Allred likely doesn't seem to realize is that the NYT reported on this story over a year ago. Someone needs to inform Allred just what the word "surprise" means. Snark about Allred aside, this is another reason Obama's Iran story won't work. If this hits the airwaves and people scoff at it (as I believe they will) then it won't make Obama's Iran story any more credible than it is, and may even detract from whatever credibility it does have.

So when all is said and done, The above mentioned stories are going to have zero positive effect for the Obama campaign, simply because these stories aren't going to sway the undecideds. These stories are meant for shoring up the base and getting the core supporters excited. I seem to remember another campaign in 2008 that tried doing the same thing. That is, ginning up support of the base when the election was almost here. But as we all know, that one didn't turn out too well for John McCain.

The Three Dumbest Non-Issues of This Campaign Season

Boy, what a difference a campaign makes. Just a few months ago I was lamenting over Newt Gingrich's loss to Mitt Romney in the Republican primary, sure that, even though I was willing to hold my nose and vote for the RINO we'd been stuck with, I was sure we'd be saddled with another four years of Barack Obama, and I'd be witnessing the end of the Republic as we know it because of Barack having "more flexibility" with his cronies both here and abroad. Now? I'm practically salivating to vote for Mitt. Not only because all the signs point to his eventual victory in November, but because there was simply more to the Mitt-ster than met the eye on first glance. Where I thought he was simply the flip flopper everyone tried to make him, from his Republican challengers to the leftist smear machine, it turned out that the candidate we ended up with would actually be more than qualified for the job of President of the United States. This has become more and more apparent with Romney's rise in the polls, his trouncing of Obama in both debates, and now, most obviously, from the fact that the Left is absolutely reeking with the same scent of desperation that permeated from John McCain's presidential campaign in 2008. By this time in that year, the McCain camp had pretty much folded, ceding Michigan, a state that had been in play up until the moment they'd pulled out, from my understanding. Well, now it's the left's turn to panic, and panic they are. Here are the three most hilariously stupid ways that their fear is showing:

3. Big Bird

We all know Big Bird. He is the nine foot yellow Muppet that talked to other multicolored Muppets at his address of 123 Sesame Street, and still does so to this day, to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars annually. Making children love learning seems to be quite the lucrative profession for these guys, given that they've been on the air for several decades. I have a special place in my heart for the Sesame Street gang, and I always will. But to the Left, apparently, Big Bird is the be all and end all of everything everywhere ever in the history of all time, because when Mitt Romney mentioned during the debate that he was planning on cutting the public funding for PBS, the nut jobs on the other side of the river thought that a sign of the Apocalypse had been discovered, due to the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the media. The Huffington Post made hay about the governor's "Big Bird Problem", another website made no qualms and said that Romney wanted to "kill Big Bird", and the Washington Post also had no issues with baldly stating that Big Bird would "haunt Mitt Romney".

What the bleeding heck!? All these issues to talk about and your first attempt to stomp all over your opponent is BIG BIRD!? Seriously? You really think, lefties, that the election hinges on whether or not the tax payers are still handing over their hard earned money so that Big Bird and the Muppets can continue to teach kids to count to 12? Got news for you, kiddies. Those same moms? The ones with kids to feed and cars to fill with gas, as well as most likely paychecks that get deprived of take home pay to supply Big Bird with HIS paycheck? They're probably more concerned with filling those gas tanks and ensuring that those kids have food to eat more so than whether or not a fictional character is still on TV. Also, moonbats, taxpayers only pay a small fraction of Big Bird's paycheck. The rest comes from private citizens in the form of charitable donations. I don't think Big Bird is in any danger of being homeless or being taken off the boob tube any time soon.


2. Binders Full of Women

This was the one I'd only heard about during the last debate. Apparently, during his tenure as governor of the Bay State, Romney went out of his way to offer flexible hours to women who worked in his cabinet because they wanted to make sure they could get home in time to make dinner for their kids. When Romney made this point in his defense of his record during said debate, apparently women everywhere were outraged. How dare this unwitting representative of the non-existent Patriarchy offer FLEXIBLE HOURS to WOMEN to MAKE THEIR LIVES A LITTLE EASIER!? Lynch that bastard right now! He's obviously a sexist pig who wants to keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen! *snark function off*. Never mind of course, that women made up half of the governor's cabinet while he was in office. Never mind that one of his former employees absolutely GUSHED over how great a boss Mitt Romney was, and never mind that Romney went out of his way to hire women because he thought there weren't enough women working in his administration. He was probably doing all that just to cover up his natural woman-hating Republican meanness!

Yeah, right. Oh, and I guess I lied about the snark being off.

The Left even went so far as to say that Mitt using the term "binders full of women" was a sexist dog whistle, because apparently they've run out of words to use to blame him for being a racist. Does no one on the left realize that he meant RESUMES!? Resumes that are kept in BINDERS so that they're on hand for review?

Please, someone put some chlorine in the gene pool. For the good of humanity!


1. Mitt's Son Tagg Totally Wants to Punch the President in the Face

This has got to be by far the stupidest non-issue I've seen so far, but there are still three weeks left to go before Obama gets his pink slip,  so there could very well be more. Until then, this is in my top spot, and there it shall stay. Legal Insurrection brought this to my attention this morning, which was what inspired me to write this entire post, actually. So thank you, Professor Jacobson, for being the muse I needed to start blogging again. The story goes a little something like this: Apparently Tagg Romney was being interviewed by the LSM at some point, and they asked him how he felt when he saw that the left was ruthlessly attacking his father using untruths and slander. He replied to them that it made him what to "jump out of the chair" and "punch the President in the face." Well, that was the end of the story right there for the Left, who immediately tried to make Tagg sound like a terrorist for daring to use such words as "punch",  "face" and "president" in the same breath. But as usual, there was a whole other side to the story that they either did not pursue out of negligence or did not pursue out of complete idiocy. I like the idea that it was both.

The reality, of course, as Professor Jacobson rightly points out, is that the clip was doctored in the media to be cut off immediately after the word "face" was spoken. In reality, Tagg said of the president that he would LIKE to punch the guy in the face sometimes, but because of the Secret Service and the fact that this whole mudslinging thing is par for the course, that you just have to roll with the punches. Sounds like a pretty reasonable stance on issues to me, no? not if you're a lefty, it would seem.

In conclusion: Let the stupidity and desperation continue. Honestly, they  can only get worse from here on out, as the polls continue to surge in Romney's favor and Obama continues to stumble his way through the debate process. I'll be nearby popping popcorn and getting ready to watch Monday's debate, and to watch the third and final time that Mitt scores a victory over the Boy King.

Here's  hopin' gang.

Secretary Clinton Takes Blame for Benghazi, Obama and Romney Spar Once Again

I have to admit that I really am behind with my watchdog duties these days, but I've been doing my best to keep up at least on the presidential campaign. I have to admit that the  initial results of the polls had me wondering whether or not we'd have a new president by January of next year, but with recent developments clearly shifting in favor of Mitt, not the least of which was his nuclear payload of a victory against The Manchurian Moonbat, I'm much more enthusiastic about the outcome of the race in November.

I've been hearing a lot about a supposed "October Surprise" that usually hits in the aforementioned month, almost always to the detriment of the challenger, from what I understand. The reason I say "almost" always is because this particular surprise that I've discovered doesn't affect Romney, but rather The Won. What is it? Read on, fellow patriots.

According to Fox News, the Obama administration has decided to make Dear Leader look tough on terror again by using special forces and other assets to take out a few of our old buddies in AQ. Oh, did I mention that these are the guys that initiated the attack on our Benghazi embassy? I didn't, did  I? Well, they are. Convenient timing, no?

Of course it's convenient timing. Not to mention the news that Hillary has decided to throw herself under the bus in order to save the Almighty O. Will this help Obama? No, no it won't. Why? Because we're three freaking weeks out from the election and the Obama campaign is trying to shore up their base. This is the electoral equivalent of bailing out a sinking cruise ship with a thimble. Hillary, to use a more classical analogy, is now the boy who has put her finger in the dike to stop the leak. I seem to recall that the dam burst anyway and drowned the young boy after the townspeople made their way to safety, so one can expect that in this situation the same will happen to Mrs. Clinton and her fellow cronies in the administration.

The question of Mrs. Clinton's movies also comes to light in this development. Did she do this to help stop the bleeding, or did she try to exacerbate the situation by showing leadership where President Obama has previously shown none at all? Only you, the reader, and the facts as they come to light, can decide that. Unfortunately I don't have enough information at this point to make a call on what her motives were.

On the debate front, I must admit that I wasn't able to watch the whole thing given that I was busy working to support our bloated federal government, but I did catch a lot of the post debate coverage and have already seen the spin mills try to frame Obama as the Comeback Kid. Already Google turns up 12,000+ news items alone carrying that phrase, some of which are those of El Rushbo and other conservatives predicting the media's desire to paint Barack Obama as a sort of Rocky Balboa figure circa Rocky 2 or 3. Still, 12,000 hits in less than a second? Sounds like the Rushmeister was pretty prophetic to me.

But while the Media decided to give Obama a "comback" narrative to try to help bolster his flagging campaign, the citizenry who saw that same debate are largely giving the debate to Romney on the crucial issue of the economy. Hotair points to a focus group done by Dr. Frank Luntz, wherein about half voted for The One in 2008, and now only about four or five still plan on voting for him after this latest attempt to make it seem like he has a vision for a second term.

That's another thing: Obama did nothing, according to the coverage on both sides, to lay out an agenda for a second term. Here's the video, which aired on that bastion of Conservative thought, MSNBC: 

As Morrissey notes in the post I linked earlier, this is a big problem for President Obama. Why? Mainly because it leaves voters asking the all important question "why should I vote for you again"? If you can't answer that question with three weeks left to go before Election Day, you're in a heap of trouble.

John Galt Lives

This:

Subject: Message from David Siegel

Date:Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:58:05 -0400 (EDT)

From: [David Siegel]

To: [All employees]

To All My Valued Employees,As most of you know our company, Westgate Resorts, has continued to succeed in spite of a very dismal economy. There is no question that the economy has changed for the worse and we have not seen any improvement over the past four years. In spite of all of the challenges we have faced, the good news is this: The economy doesn't currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best. 

I started this company over 42 years ago. At that time, I lived in a very modest home. I converted my garage into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. We didn't eat in fancy restaurants or take expensive vacations because every dollar I made went back into this company. I drove an old used car, and often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business — hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, many of my friends got regular jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a nice income, and they spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into this business —-with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford to buy whatever I wanted. Even to this day, every dime I earn goes back into this company. Over the past four years I have had to stop building my dream house, cut back on all of my expenses, and take my kids out of private schools simply to keep this company strong and to keep you employed.

Just think about this – most of you arrive at work in the morning and leave that afternoon and the rest of your time is yours to do as you please. But not me- there is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have that freedom. I eat, live, and breathe this company every minute of the day, every day of the week. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. I know many of you work hard and do a great job, but I'm the one who has to sign every check, pay every expense, and make sure that this company continues to succeed. Unfortunately, what most people see is the nice house and the lavish lifestyle. What the press certainly does not want you to see, is the true story of the hard work and sacrifices I've made.

Now, the economy is falling apart and people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits, but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the costs of running a business have gotten out of control, and let me tell you why: We are being taxed to death and the government thinks we don't pay enough. We pay state taxes, federal taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, workers compensation taxes and unemployment taxes. I even have to hire an entire department to manage all these taxes. The question I have is this: Who is really stimulating the economy? Is it the Government that wants to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not, or is it people like me who built a company out of his garage and directly employs over 7000 people and hosts over 3 million people per year with a great vacation?

Obviously, our present government believes that taking my money is the right economic stimulus for this country. The fact is, if I deducted 50 percent of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? Who wants to get rewarded only 50 percent of their hard work? Well, that's what happens to me.

Here is what most people don't understand and the press and our Government has chosen to ignore — to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Instead of raising my taxes and depositing that money into the Washington black-hole, let me spend it on growing the company, hire more employees, and generate substantial economic growth. My employees will enjoy the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But that is not what our current Government wants you to believe. They want you to believe that it somehow makes sense to take more from those who create wealth and give it to those who do not, and somehow our economy will improve. They don't want you to know that the "1%", as they like to label us, pay more than 31% of all the taxes in this country. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our great Constitution, once said, "democracy" will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate business, not kill it. However, the power brokers in Washington believe redistributing wealth is the essential driver of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change they want.

So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.

So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job. While the media wants to tell you to believe the "1 percenters" are bad, I'm telling you they are not. They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the "1%"; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country.

You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.

Signed, your boss,

David Siegel

Seems the Country is Getting Some Much Needed R&R

Pun definitely intended. By now the entire blogosphere is aware that Paul Ryan has been chosen to be the other half of Mitt Romney's presidential ticket, and without speaking for the other conservatives out there, I must say that it was a masterful choice. I heard and read about the Ryan Plan back when the Left was trying to make it seem as though Ryan wanted nothing more than to throw grandma off a cliff in order to save money, and this was just when he was running for his House seat. I can only imagine the bull that the bottom feeders will dare throw out at him now that he's heading out to vie for the second most powerful office in the country. Given how smart he is, though, I'm willing to bet he can handle it.

To be perfectly honest, I couldn't be more impressed with Romney now, and I'm certainly a great deal more hopeful that he'll start the ball rolling to get us off the edge of the fiscal cliff we're in danger of plummeting over. Hot Air seems to have been the first news outlet to break this story, with three posts on the front page today. One from Jazz Shaw, who had the honor of being the first to announce the winner of this year's Republican Veepstakes, one from new poster Erika Johnson, and the third and final from Hot Air veteran Ed Morrissey showing that Ryan's favorability in the polls is sky high among seniors. (Let the lefties try to spin THAT into a disfavored outcome for ol' Paulie boy).

I would go into each post's importance and analysis of the situation, but it's best, I think, if I just link them and let them speak for themselves. Hot Air, of course, is not the only outlet that is abuzz with news over Paul Ryan, either. Fox News.com, of course, has article after article, as does Mitt fan Matt Drudge. The opinions on Ryan being a good pick or not run the gamut from "Excellent" to "Absolutely horrible" to the ever popular "meh" and "tough sell". One thing is clear, though. The game has changed, as one writer cited by Hot Air declared yesterday upon hearing the news. One side, however, is in unanimous agreement, it would seem, over what Ryan's potential VP status does to the Romney campaign. Three guesses which side that is.

As for my take on Ryan? I don't think there would be a better choice for Romney's ticket. Granted, it does look as though he's trying to make it clear to fiscal hawks and die hard conservatives that he is not of the same mold as the President (which those of us with level heads already knew, of course), and for that he's likely to get some skeptical looks from the hard right. However, this could (and indeed looks) to be a major tonic for Independent voters, who were waffling more than most on whether or not Romney would be different enough from Obama to really give the electorate an actual choice this time around instead of simply picking between two clones dressed in different suits.

All in all, this promises to be one interesting campaign season now that the VP distraction is over with. I, for one, can hardly wait to see Paul Ryan put Joe "Big F'n Deal" Biden in his place during the debates.

Continuing to Fight the Good Fight

Gay Republicans are like Black Klan Members and Jewish Nazis, says Michael Musto

Don't you just love this new tone the Democrats are pushing lately? Ever since the Gabby Giffords shooting a while back, they've just been gushing with the civility and tolerance they declare themselves known for. Or not, judging from the article at Buzzfeed, which has a story quoting Village Voice writer Michael Musto declaring the above statement in the title of this post. What is he trying to say, exactly? If gay Republicans are like black Klan members, then does that mean that such a thing doesn't exist? the existence of GOProud would say otherwise, of course, but given that Musto appears to have his head up his backside, he must not be aware of that fact.

In all seriousness, however, this is just another example of the typical playbook of the left. I think I'll take to calling it "The Four Ds of Destroying your Opposition": Deflect, Demonize, Divide, Diminish.

Should work very well come november to help obama get reelected, no?

I didn't think so.

Andrea Mitchell Gives a Lesson in how to be Incompetent at her Job

Nothing gets me giddy more than seeing liberal media toads get taken down a peg or two by us redneck Bible thumpers. This has already made the rounds of the internet by now, of course, but I'm sure there are some who read this who haven't heard the story. If indeed that is the case, here it is: MSNBC propagandist Andrea Mitchell, in an attempt to make Mitt Romney look like an out of touch rich snob, presented the following video on her program a couple of nights ago:



See that? He sure seems like a real jerk, huh? Well, he would for those who haven't seen the raw video, as I have:



Elitist snob or clever up and coming presidential candidate? You be the judge.

Hat tip to Chicks on the Right for the videos

Another Domino Falls. Public Sector Unions Should Go, Says Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels

I have to say, the more I hear about Mitch Daniels, the more I wish he'd run for president in the upcoming election. As a recent and frequent follower of Chicks on the Right's Daisy and Mockarena, I learned about his efforts to reform the state of Indiana with things like "not spending money" and "making people contribute to their own benefits." I was one of the people who didn't think he'd run for president in 2012, and it's not often that I'm so sorry to have been right as I was. Still, in Indiana Daniels may be doing more good than he ever could have done as President of the United States by issuing the statement that inspired the title of this post. Fox News has the story.

His remark follows the recent victory by Scott Walker over Tom Berret in Wisconsin, where Walker reportedly received more votes in the recall than he did in the election that got him into office in the first place. In short, Daniels believes, according to the article linked above, that public employee unions are more of a hindrance than a help to their employees these days, and that they should go the way of the dinosaur. Is it a coincidence that he speaks out mere days after the failed assault on Walker and his policies? Perhaps, but given that Daniels was actually the one who gave those same reforms to the people of Indiana back in 2005/2006, I doubt it. Still, the message being sent was clear, at least to me: "We don't have to hide anymore. We don't have to be afraid."

And indeed we do not. No longer do we conservatives have to simply watch as union thugs and entitled whiners cry and moan about how WE have to pay for THEIR benefits because THEY say so and screw you if you don't like it. In this humble Crusader's opinion, this is but the first in a long line of dominoes that will begin to fall against unions and their desire to "help" their workers by sucking away more and more of their take home wages to finance Democratic elections and Democratic candidates all in the name of having the choice of which Democratic candidate you want to vote for, because democrats are the party of choice, so you'd better do what they tell you to do, got it?

Here's to hoping other states follow the lead of Wisconsin and Indiana.

Sure, Mr. President. The Private Sector is Doing Just Fine...at Bleeding Out.

Everyone who reads this blog, I'm assuming, knows that Obama, by now, has dropped a speaking gaffe worthy of the great Joe "Big F'n Deal" Biden just a few days past. Specifically, just in case I'm mistaken and there are a few that don't know what was said by The Anointed One this past week, I'll let Hot Air explain:

President Obama magnanimously appeared before us on Friday morning to explain away these charges, most particularly concerning the economy and Europe, and to exhort Congress to step up their game on passing jobs-related legislation. Europeans, he said, face the challenge of needing to both get their spending under control, while also encouraging growth. The United States has the same problem, and needs to find ways to grow the economy in order to create jobs and wealth and boost revenue. Curiously, the jobs he seemed most concerned about are state-and-local government jobs, including cops, teachers, and firefighters, because apparently, the private sector is doing just fine, or something.

Yes, you read that right. President Obama has actually had the audacity to declare that the private sector is not struggling, bleeding jobs, or unable to hire workers due to a sluggish economic policy and less than favorable speculation about the future of the free market. Don't believe me? Here's the video: 

Keep it up, Mr. President. I can hardly wait until your next gaffe.

Walker Wins. Dems caught with Panties in Wad

Well, it's been more than a little while since I've posted here. Life has a way of getting in the path of my watchdog duties, but more so than that, I think, is the fact that so much news has been the same old same old of the political cat fight that is our government and election system, that I just burned out. Honestly, it wasn't too long ago that I was coming up with a few new posts each week and having trouble deciding which one to go after and analyze. Not so this last year. With school taking up most of my time, I of course don't have the time to go zipping around news sights as much as I used to, but not only that, I just couldn't find it in me to wade back into the cesspool of partisan politics as more than a spectator. I was looking for that one "wow" story to post about, but each new outrage du jour turned out only to be yet another swing either for or against one side or the other in the never ending torrential rain of slander and libel.

I'm sure that once the general election gets underway, though, that I'll be able to find time to at least post a few tidbits here and there about who has what percentage in whichever poll that day, as I did with the debates back before Romney clinched the nomination with Newt's exit. That event, I must admit, disappointed me, however I'm not going to be one of those nitwits who says "my guy didn't get nominated, so I'm staying home." I'm not going to do that. Too many people did that with John McCain in the 2008 race and we got stuck with BO for four years. Not this time. Not on my watch.

That said, on to the news item that I believe will be a bell weather factor in whether or not we get four more years of no hope and no change: The Wisconson recall.

I admit that I was biting my nails for a while about whether or not Walker would get out of this one with his credibility and his job intact. I needn't have worried, it turns out. According to The O'Reilly Factor and Hannity, Walker came away with a 9-10 percent lead by the time the votes had been 95 percent counted.

The spin machine is in full force after the election last night, and holy Hannah, they are reaching so far they'll need Mr. Fantastic himself to grasp whatever point they're making. Howard Dean, one of my favorite psychotic mouthpieces, is spinning the win as the end of American Democracy as we know it, and our left wing hack buddy Richard Trumka is saying that the defeat in Wisconson of Big Labor was a GOOD thing for them rather than a bad. How's the tint on those rose colored glasses, Richie? Looking a little dark to me.

And my favorite favorite post from that site, Rachel Maddow, the Leftist answer to Bill O'Reilly, has admitted a fundamental truth that we conservatives have known for quite a while: The Democrat Party can't win without the unions.

The dems are in disarray. Let's make sure they don't regain momentum before November

Great Ad

Let's make this go viral, folks.

Hey, Look! A Compassionate Liberal!

Nah, just kidding. This guy seriously needs an attitude adjustment. I'm amazed that the woman in the video was able to keep her composure the way she was. Take a listen if you want to risk your head exploding:

Pelosi Doesn't Have Much of a Poker Face, Despite all That Expression Freezing Botox of Hers...

So now that Newt has apparently become a threat to the plans of our newly elected King Barack The First (and, one hopes, only), that Nancy McBotox Pelosi has decided it's time to take off the kid gloves and get down to the nitty gritty of dirty pool politics. Or not. A while back, just after Newt announced he was running, if memory serves, Nance said point blank that she has "something" on Newt that will "insure he will never be president." Some of my readers might remember Newt's first response to this, when Gingrich called it an "early Christmas gift" due to its being a flagrant disregard and violation of the House Rules of Conduct. I don't know the House rules by heart, but in my view, any one who uses dirty tricks for the sake of taking down someone who disagrees with you belongs in the "I"m a scumbag" category of humanity. I think we all know that the leader of the most ethical congress in American history belongs quite nicely in that little niche, don't we?

Below is the video of Pelosi putting out her supposed carrot, hoping that gullible GOP voters will take the bait and abandon Newt in droves on the word of someone who never seems to be able to ttop smiling like the Joker on a Meth high. You, loyal readers, be the judge and tell me: Is Newt really in trouble or is Pelosi just whistling past the graveyard in an attempt at making things seem safe and sound for Democrats come Super Tuesday?



For my part, I say she's bluffing, and she has a major tell. Note in the first few seconds that all she says, in kind of a manic sounding voice, in my opinion, is that "it's not going to happen." How does she know? Nance here thought the Democrats would keep control of the House in 2010, if I'm not mistaken. In short, I'm thinking she's more wrong here than a Lousianna fortune teller. And apparently so does Newt:

I found this video courtesy of the Mock Dock. It was made back in 2009 after an American Idol contestant was killed in a car crash after being eliminated from the show. As funny as it is, it reminds me that the brightest candles often burn the fastest.

Let the Anti-Newt Barrage Continue

Let me just begin by saying I have about as much trust for the media as a housefly does for a frog. This statement can only be reinforced by the recent development being touted by Matt Drudge and Hotair, and I'm sure there are several dozen other media outlets piping it on their propaganda speakers as well.

I'm speaking of course, of Newt's supposed threat to back out of the rest of the debates if the audience is not allowed to cheer. Let me be clear here. In the video wherein Newt actually addresses the point of the moderators asking that the audience hold their applause until commercial breaks, Newt does not say anything about quitting. What he said was that he didn't appreciate and would not condone such acts by media moderators. A perfectly reasonable response, in my view, given Newt's tendency not to beat around the bush about such things. Unfortunately his choice of words and the pandering of the media outlets to the Stop Newt campaign have taken this theme and run with it. It remains to be seen if any of this will affect the outcome of Florida's primary. Romney appears to have, in a last ditch effort to regain his lead among Sunshine State voters, given this meme more than a little airtime himself. Via Legal Insurrection:  


Here’s how CNS transcribed the segment (h/t Gateway Pundit):

“And we’re going to serve notice on future debates, we won’t (mumble), we’re just not going to allow that to happen. That’s wrong. The media doesn’t control free speech. People ought to be allowed to applaud if they want to. It was almost silly.”

The claim that Newt threatened to pull out of future debates, at least if this video is the proof, is a fabrication of The NY Times being hyped by Drudge.

To the contrary, if I were Newt and the network set such rules, I’d show up and in my opening announce that the audience does not need to obey the network, and invite the others on stage to join him.  Is there any candidate who would not go along?

I have to agree with that sentiment. I haven't yet watched the debate, but all reports I've heard so far are Newt has lost said debate because of apparently falling into a bit of a trap regarding disclosure. More on that as I learn of it.

To end, here's my boy Newt's stance on an issue I thought long dead: The Ground Zero Mosque:

Tortoise and the Hare: Is Romney's new Status as a Giant With Clay Feet due to Early Overconfidence?

So soon after South Carolina, Romney, whose nomination was once thought inevitable, is now beginning to crumble due to his lackluster performance in which he flubbed the chance to come clean about his tax returns in addition to giving an overall decidedly ho-hum performance, especially when compared to Newt Gingrich and his confident lambasting of John King and the media in general, as well as his far more confident display of his record while serving as Speaker of the House. Santorum made a decent showing, even if it was too little too late to go on the offense for him, at least in my view.

Regardless, it would seem that everyone and their brother has decided that Romney is now in a less than tenable position regarding his campaign, as if that wasn't obvious by the stomping Newt gave him last week. Still, it would seem that the only ones who don't yet know that Newt has pulled ahead is the Romney campaign themselves. Or perhaps they do know it, since Romney has now been backed into a corner and forced to actually commit to the Florida debates, something he had initially declined to do while he was so far ahead. To be perfectly honest, in this climate now, Romney has to enter damage control mode immediately, and entering into the debates is the most immediate way, aside from an ad blitz that will likely hit Florida in the coming days, as well as is concession speech, in which he needled Newt without actually mentioning him by name.

The question of whether or not this will help is certainly in doubt. Mitt had a big lead in Florida prior to SC, but now things seem to have turned around, if this article is any indication. Though even with the prep work Romney has done to shore up his defenses and prepare to go on the attack in the Sunshine State, this particular political junkie believes that it might not be enough. Then again, Newt could have another moment where he squanders his momentum. Call me optimistic, but I don't think that'll happen. Newt is a man who learns from his mistakes, as far as I can tell, and I think he's learned well from this one.

Still, Mitt has an uphill battle ahead of him now whereas before it seemed to be a lock. Even now on Twitter, the first pre-debate polls have been released and it's not looking good for the governor. Gingrich appears to be enjoying a nine point lead. It appears that Mittens may have to take off the kid gloves if he has a hope of winning back the senior citizen/retiree demographic.

Newt Wins South Carolina! What's Next for the Former Speaker?

Well, the results are in boys and girls. It looks like Newt has carried South Carolina, according to Twitter, Hot Air, FiveThirtyEight and CBS News. All are different mediums, but they all say the same thing. Newt has won the day. We now, interestingly enough, have a three way tie between three candidates in as many states. Santorum won Iowa, Romney won New Hampshire, and now Newt has won SC after the pundits and talking heads continued to squawk about how Romney would be the inevitable nominee and we should all just bend over and take it like good little sheep. Well, the pundits all showed just how much they knew about who is and is not electable. After an early muck up in Iowa, it seems Newt has the momentum he needs to really give Romney a run for his money.

What's interesting is watching the different takes on what it means now that Newt has won. The next stop of course is Florida, where until recently Romney had an insurmountable lead against his now chief rival. FiveThirtyEight holds that things will be much more difficult for the former Governor than they were before, since the poll data that determined Romney's lead was factoring in a possible Gingrich defeat in the Palmetto State.

CBS News, on the other hand, shies away from predicting the future and simply states the facts. Newt won, end of story. Probably a good idea since no one really knows what will happen with Newt now that he's in a position to go all the way.

Hot Air appears to have liveblogged the entire event, with regular updates leading all the way up to Newt's victory. Allahpundit comments on Twitter that Newt won over most every demographic in the state, most of whom were for Romney up until debate night. Apparently someone doesn't think much of scoring a come from behind victory based on two debates, calling us the U.S. of American Idol.

Romney's boys appear to have seen the writing on the wall early, if this photo is any indication. Tough luck, guys.

Here's the actual exit poll information via New York Times for all those interested.

And that's the skinny, boys and girls. And next on the list? Florida. Onward and upward. If Newt pulls a win there, perhaps it'll be the first time since Reagan's inauguration that it will well and truly be "morning in America". What better place to usher in a new Conservative dawn than the Sunshine State, I ask you?

Mitt Romney Collapsing in SC?

So much for the inevitable rise and election of Mitt Romney. If indications in South Carolina are any indication, Mitt seems to be a giant whose clay feet have at last been revealed, and are beginning to suffer being chipped away little by little as Newt rises to overtake him. The Other McCain has more. Check it out.