Thursday, November 8, 2012

New POST....Obama Will Take Us Down...officially www.ObamaWillTakeUsDown.blogspot.com

For the past 48 hours I have been debating on what I would do with this post....obviously the 2012 election is now over and as much as I hate to say it Obama remains our President.

Half of America (and the more intelligent half from my estimation ) knows that this will be terrible for America...Terrible for Jobs...Terrible for the Debt...Terrible for Freedom....Terrible for Democracy, Liberties and the Constitution....Terrible for our National Security....

After 39169 page views and 3915 posts I felt that it would be best to continue to point out the hypocricy, the corruption, the dirty dealing and the lack of leadership by Obama and his regime in his second term. He will not make America better in his second term.

SOOOOOO....I have started a new Blog....it is www.ObamaWillTakeUs Down.blogspot.com

I encourage you to take the time to look at it over the coming days/months....I will stop posting to the noobama2012.blogspot.com.  I encourage to becomes a follower on the new blog...

I pledge to be fair, but I also pledge to not let Obama and his regime goons get away with taking America down.

It's started already with the market down over 400 points in the first two days of his second term...it will all continue...

Thanks for reading the old blog....Please follow me to the new blog...

Steve Kendziera

Obama.....He hasn't changes one bit....Still Useless....

Here he goes AGAIN...Just gets reelected and he announces he is going to Burma, Cambodia and Thailand....What a joke...we have only 53 days until this nation hits the fiscal cliff and Obama is going out traveling...Does ANYONE really believe that this President is going to get any more involved than he has in the past??? Certainly he will not....Once again this will go until New Years Eve and then it will be a crisis...meanwhile he will keep living large traveling, enjoying his presidential life while the big problems facing America get bigger and bigger...

Obama to visit Burma, Cambodia, Thailand


Published November 08, 2012 FoxNews.com


President Obama will become the first U.S. president to visit Burma and Cambodia when he travels to the Asian nations later this month.

The White House said Obama will also visit Thailand. The trip comes less than two weeks after Obama's re-election.

Obama's trip to Burma marks the culmination of a dramatic turnaround in the country's relations with Washington. Burma has shifted from five decades of ruinous military rule and shaken off the pariah status it had earned through its bloody suppression of democracy.

The president has suspended sanctions to reward Burma for political prisoner releases and other democratic reforms.

In Cambodia, Obama will attend the East Asia summit and meet with the leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations


Chris Christie is DONE as a Republican....

I have in the past enjoyed Chris Christie's attitude and his tough stance on unions, but after his recent behavior it's obvious that his future career as a leader in the republican party is DONE!.....He might was well become a democrat, he's got no future in the republican party. He's never been a conservative anyway....

Laura Ingraham: ‘It would not surprise me if Chris Christie at some point became a Democrat’

3:55 PM 11/06/2012 Jeff Poor


Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who came out long ago in favor of his party’s nominee Mitt Romney’s candidacy for president, apparently upset a lot of people on the conservative side for his embrace of Romney’s opponent, President Barack Obama in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. And according to conservative talker Laura Ingraham, it was taken to the point of “embarrassing himself.”

On her Tuesday radio program, Ingraham, the author of “Of Thee I Zing: America’s Cultural Decline,” criticized the New Jersey governor for his latest comment expressing his excitement in hearing from Obama supporter and rock star Bruce Springsteen.

“Speaking of embarrassing himself, Chris Christie … was out there and he was very excited, not because he’s voting for Romney,” Ingraham said. “He’s excited because he got a phone call: not just from the president of these United States, but he got a phone call from Bruce Springsteen.”

Ingraham went on to point out that Christie shares a character trait with Obama in that he often talks about things in context of himself.

“You know what, I’ve just got to say this: He has a lot more in common with Obama than we thought,” she said. “It’s all about Chris Christie. ‘My Jersey Shore,’ ‘my roller coasters underwater,’ ‘my hero Bruce Springsteen,’ ‘I have to pinch myself to go on Air Force One as the son of an Italian immigrant,’ or whatever he said.”

“Me, me, me, me, me. And I know he’s done a lot of good things for a lot of good people, and there is something about me that does like Chris Christie at times. But I find his behavior in all of this to be really just bizarre at this point.”

But she also suggested that these signs point to Christie becoming a Democrat, which she said wouldn’t surprise her.

“Let me tell you something , Chris Christie — it would not surprise me if Chris Christie at some point became a Democrat,” Ingraham said. “Doesn’t surprise me one bit. It really doesn’t, in the end.”


My Sentiments Exactly....Except I WOULDN'T have Used the word Thank before You!

A thank you note from an average American


4:15 PM 11/07/2012 Jack Finn

Thank you, America. Thank you for re-electing Barack Obama.

Thank you for solidifying Obamacare. Thank you for ensuring that my health insurance rates will rise to the point where my employer drops my coverage. Thank you for future higher prescription drug prices, for lower quality care, for long lines to see my doctor, and for allowing a board of 15 people to determine my fate. Thank you, America.

Thank you, America, for making sure our media will be taking a coffee break for the next four years instead of holding our elected officials accountable (unless they’re Republicans, of course). Thank you for making sure we’ll never find out about how we lost a brave border agent who was shot by a gun from a government gun-running operation. Thank you for making sure we won’t find out about why our president lied about the circumstances surrounding the death of an ambassador. Thank you for seeing to it that we won’t find out that the government’s response to Sandy was worse than its response to Katrina. Thank you, America.

Thank you, America, for making sure we’ll continue to have an education system that teaches children that you are bad while ignoring the genius of your Declaration of Independence and your Constitution; that teaches children about birth control and gender equality but steers clear of God; that teaches children to rely on the government for the things they need instead of on themselves. Thank you, America.

Thank you, America, for ensuring that we will continue to run up huge deficits. Thank you for ensuring the continued abuse of the Fed, which will be free to print more money, eventually making it worth less than the paper it’s printed on. Thank you for piling that debt on my children, so they’ll have to work for your government and China’s, rather than for themselves and their families. Thank you, America.

Thank you, America, for making sure our military strength will be greatly reduced, in men and in supplies and equipment. Thank you for cementing poor relationships with our allies while coddling our enemies. Thank you for ensuring Iran gets a nuclear weapon, which it will not be afraid to use, probably resulting in another deadly global conflict down the road. Thank you, America.

Thank you, America, for ensuring that proposed regulations on oil drilling and coal mining will be implemented, which will cause gas and electricity prices to spike. Thank you for ensuring that we won’t be able to build new power plants and refineries. And thank you especially because these things will cause our everyday necessities, like food and transportation, to cost us more than ever before. Thank you, America.

Thank you, America, for ensuring that our religious institutions will be dictated to by your government, that they will have to provide services such as contraception and abortion even though doing so defies their most basic beliefs. Thank you, America.

Thank you, America, for making sure we will continue to further divide ourselves into groups and see ourselves only by our race, gender, age, sexual orientation and income, instead of seeing each other as Americans. Thank you, America.

Thank you, America, for the judges who will soon be sitting behind the benches in our courts, who will render decisions based on ideological social beliefs while ignoring the Constitution they’ve sworn to uphold. Thank you, America.

Yes, thank you, America, for all of these wonderful gifts you’ve given us by re-electing Barack Obama.

Of course, if I was bitter, I would have used another word besides “thank” in front of “you.”

Jack Finn is a freelance writer who has worked in the entertainment and sports industries for the last 25 years. He’s a proud American, and most importantly, a loving father and husband.


Obama Does Need to Go To Work NOW....But is he too lazy and too detached to do it????

The President's Top 5 Immediate Problems

Now that President Obama will never face re-election again, it is time for the campaigning to end. Perpetual political rhetoric and promises do not matter any more. Action—and leadership—are sorely needed on pressing issues that threaten the United States. America’s people are under threats to their livelihoods, their protection, and their freedom. For some of these, deadlines for action have already come and gone, making them more dire than ever.

Here are the top five problems that require the President’s immediate attention.

1. Massive Tax Increases Scheduled

When the chairman of the Federal Reserve says the nation is headed over a cliff, the President should take notice. A total of nearly $500 billion in tax increases—old tax policies expiring and new ones taking effect—is scheduled to hit on January 1. This “Taxmageddon” fiscal-end-of-days scenario will hit individuals and their families, struggling small businesses and investors alike. So much for creating jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, which does not normally forecast recessions, has said that without some action to change our direction, the country is heading straight for another recession in 2013. As Heritage’s J.D. Foster wrote, “If a slowdown or even a recession unfolds as CBO predicts, the blame will lie with President Obama.”

2. Cuts to the U.S. Military

Through a legislative process called sequestration, the President and his allies in Congress thought they could secure tax increases by holding America’s military hostage. So they programmed massive cuts to our defenses to take effect in January. Using the military as a political weapon is wrong, and nothing has been done to prevent these harmful cuts. While our enemies build up their weapons programs and terrorists target Americans around the globe, the U.S. is preparing to radically downsize the military—all because the President and liberals in Congress want to raise taxes.

So far, the President hasn’t achieved his tax hike goal. If the military cuts are allowed to go forward, it will devastate our defenses. Contrary to the political rhetoric, Washington leaders could fix this without raising taxes.

3. The Middle East

It’s easy in a campaign to say you’d rather focus on “nation building here at home.” But the Middle East is ablaze with conflict, and that is not going to be put on hold for the President to focus on other issues. According to some reports, Iran could be able to arm a nuclear bomb within the next few months.

Heritage’s James Carafano writes today: “Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, protests in the Gulf States, an increasingly unsteady Egypt, terrorists in the Sahel—these are all distinct problems, yet each has the potential to cascade throughout the region and beyond.”

4. Terrorism

To begin, the President needs to come clean about the intelligence regarding the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the U.S. ambassador and others.

Carafano says a wholesale change in strategy is needed:

There is more than enough evidence that the President’s counterterrorism strategy, though less than two years old, has come to the end of its life. That strategy focused on “decapitating” al-Qaeda. It didn’t work because al-Qaeda is really just a piece of a global Islamist insurgency. Unlike a drug cartel, it can’t be taken down by just taking out the leadership. Unless the President changes course soon, terrorists will have more sanctuaries by 2016 than they had in 2010.

5. Obamacare’s Mandate Threatening Religious Liberty

Just a few days ago, a second federal district court issued a preliminary injunction on behalf of a family-owned business against the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate under Obamacare. The HHS mandate forces nearly all employers to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraceptives in their employee health coverage, regardless of religious objections. It disregards conscience and steamrolls religious freedom: Religious charities and family-owned businesses that object are forced to pay massive fines for non-compliant plans—up to $100 per day per employee. For a company like Hobby Lobby with more than 500 stores, that fine would amount to $1.3 million per day.

No wonder more than 100 plaintiffs have joined legal challenges to the mandate, which went into effect on August 1. As employers reach their health plan annual renewal date, they’ll be forced to comply. This is only one of the many obtrusive parts of Obamacare, but it is an immediate problem for employers—costly, demoralizing, and a direct attack on religious freedom.

Time to get to work, Mr. President.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Sad, But True....What Was America Thinking????

THE FINAL POLITICAL EMAIL



First of all, to my children and grandchildren and generations of my progeny not yet born…I sincerely apologize. I’m politically poor from all the donations I made to conservative organizations and candidates. All my efforts fell short. I’m sorry I couldn’t do more.



Next…too all who voted for Barack Hussein Obama. It’s often said there are two great disappointments in life…(1) Not getting what you want and (2) Getting what you THOUGHT you wanted.



YOU have successfully destroyed this nation. It should now be renamed the USSA…”United Socialist States of America”. This is NOT an exaggeration. Let me explain.



During the first four years of his administration “BO” nationalized the housing industry, the automobile industry, and the medical industry…all “socialized”. Expect in the second term, nationalism of the airline industry, the oil and gas industry, and the power industry (electrical power from fossil and nuclear fuel sources). Expect much more borrowed and tax money to be given to unproductive and unsuccessful “green” industries.



Many women selfishly voted for “BO”…their votes driven exclusively by their reproductive ability…government-funded abortion on demand…early term…late term…it will make no difference. Contraception will be government provided but, sadly, rarely used. Now the women are guaranteed two “freedoms of choice”…the freedom to avoid pregnancy and secondly, the freedom to terminate it once they ignore the first choice.



Some form of amnesty will not only grant legitimacy to illegal aliens, it will also assure huge payments for housing, subsistence, medical care, and free secondary education at the public expense. That’s the only way the illegals can be enslaved to vote for liberalism…which they will be allowed to do.



Expect significantly more relaxed drug laws and far less severe punishments for drug use. Then, expect a huge expenditure on government drug treatment centers and increasing costs to feed and house the rapidly growing numbers of non-productive users.



Expect the progressive elimination of GOD from visibility. The concept of separation of church and state will be taken by legislation to unlawful levels so the public will eventually (perhaps not in this administration but in future ones) be unable to have any public display of religion on their lawns during the “winter holiday” (can’t call it Christmas anymore…someone might be offended).



Expect more and more accommodation of Islam with disregard to Christianity. It was very evident in the last four years…it will become more so in the next four years. Remember…we don’t want to offend anyone.



It’s possible for three Supreme Court justices to be replaced in the next four years. Expect a very liberal Supreme Court which powerfully legislates from the bench. The same will hold true for dozens (hundreds?) of lower court judges. They WILL vote in favor of the liberal ideal. Morality is not an issue.



The second amendment to the Constitution will, in some way, be significantly diluted. Perhaps with exorbitant taxes on ammunition? As a matter of fact, any time the Constitution is a barrier to liberal idealism, it will either be ignored or diluted by some form of legislation, executive degree, or liberal judicial interpretation…somehow by-passed.



Be prepared for YOUR GOVERNMENT to allow, if not encourage, outside influence into your lives. The U.N. will begin to dictate to us and we will comply. You will be forced to fall in line with Europe. We will become “Europeanized”. It thrills other nationalities that we will be brought down to their standards. They’re giddy with excitement over “BO’s” re-election…as are Putin, Castro, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad…all of whom endorsed “BO”



When (it’s already happened as evidenced by the election) a high enough percentage of the population Is “ENSLAVED” to and by the government, they (all of us!) will have to vote to keep them (the “masters”) in power so they (the public) can continue to be cared for.



We are now enslaved by socialism. There is no turning back. It’s impossible to get a sufficient number of votes to displace the “masters”. Conversely, the “masters” cannot take back what they’ve already given without risk to their power.



These issues are only the superficial tip of the iceberg. Other issues are also contributors.



Since we are now about SIXTEEN TRILLION in debt (FIVE trillion added in the last four years!), expect the total collapse of the economy of the U.S.S.A. Not just increasing the tax on the wealthy…but taking 100% of their total wealth would not begin to reduce the national debt. With the vast increase in government spending and nationalization of more business and industry, expenditures to keep the SLAVES (us!) in line will destroy us.



The question is no more fundamental than how long it will take for the total collapse of the American economy.



Obama voters…remember this missive. You got what you thought you wanted



And again, to my kids and their kids…I’m so sorry. You have been dealt a losing hand by those who are selfish and willing to sacrifice this nation for their own immediate and personal interests.

Interesting Article on the Challenges Facing Obama in a Second Term....


Obama Made the Bed, Now He Must Lay In It


Kevin Danielsen November 7, 2012 9:06 am


And so, Barack Hussein Obama will see another term in the Oval Office. While this campaign season was all that preoccupied the airwaves and media these last couple of months, there was something overshadowing the entire effort (for both candidates, actually).


Whether Romney or Obama, both would have been elected with the far cry from changing the status quo. For one, while the Democrats control the Senate, the Republicans control the House. If Romney had won, he would have been deadlocked by the Senate to repeal Obamacare (which would have been one of his first prerogatives). Now that Obama has won, we will likely have much of the same: a lame-duck Congress with the House that is handily controlled by the Republicans.

This fact is emphasized by the voter turnout from the yesterday’s numbers. Basically, carving up the country under the popular vote numbers, you’ve got just about a 50-50 split with a little variation here and there. NationalJournal.com reports the reason for the apparent lack in forward momentum, and the absence of a mandate:


Barack Obama won a second term but no mandate. Thanks in part to his own small-bore and brutish campaign, victory guarantees the president nothing more than the headache of building consensus in a gridlocked capital on behalf of a polarized public.

If the president begins his second term under any delusion that voters rubber-stamped his agenda on Tuesday night, he is doomed to fail.

Indeed, the US is just about as polarized as it has ever been.

This division is a major problem for the Obama administration, especially considering the economic, financial, and foreign policy problems that are about to befall the public and private sectors. You have a fiscal cliff looming off the distance in January; you have the Benghazi incident and subsequent questions lurking; and last, you have Obamacare, which a large part of the country hasn’t exactly adopted as something that makes them comfortable. Needless to say, you have very big national problems on the horizon, and the Obama administration has very little power to stop them.

He can’t artificially block the leaks with more federal spending, because the House won’t let him. President Obama made his bed in his first term… he must now lay in it for his second. The day of reckoning is at hand.

The Fight Will Go On!!!!

Now Is a Time for Commitment


Dear friends,

I write to tell you to take heart.

Yes, conservatives are disappointed that a President who recklessly spent trillions, expanded government and put many of our values and institutions at risk has won a second term. But many of us have been here before. In Washington, there are no permanent victories or permanent defeats, just permanent battles.

Now is the time to stand up and declare we will continue to fight against big government and for freedom.

We will see unfold over the next four years a crucial battle for the soul of America. This struggle requires committed warriors for the cause. The line must be held against bad policy while we continue advocating conservative solutions. We must fight against the efforts to divide the country through class warfare.

Rest assured this is what The Heritage Foundation is determined to do.

We know that the First Principles reflected in our Constitution made this country great. Those principles are alive and well in the hearts and minds of the American people. We will work harder than ever before to defend them and to see them translated into the right public policies.

President Obama may have won an Electoral College victory, but he knows that he lacks a mandate for changing our nation according to his progressive vision. He is the first re-elected president since World War II not to improve his margin of victory and to get fewer Electoral College votes in re-election.

Let me be clear: The President does not have a mandate. But even so, he may claim he has a dictate to radically transform our country with his Euro-socialist agenda. We cannot allow him to get away with any such false claim or dangerous plan.

The President’s much-diminished support should make clear to Mr. Obama that he lacks a mandate for radically transforming this country, and we hope that will be the case. Of course, given the record of the past four years, we are not holding our breath. So we must be ready.

We must be ready to seize opportunities and to make opportunities. There is the breakdown in Congress, a coequal branch of government. Conservatives were reelected to the House of Representatives, while Harry Reid and his friends still own the Senate. The status quo in Washington sadly still exists, and it is up to us to make sure that conservatives going forward present the clearest, most compelling contrast possible to the policies of the left. You can count on Heritage to work with our conservative allies in Congress to make this happen.

We will fight by offering the right policy proposals. From entitlement reform to national defense and energy policy, The Heritage Foundation will continue to fight for the solutions the country needs.

We have a lot of work to do. Obamacare is dragging down our already struggling economy. Our nation is going broke with a national debt of $16 trillion—a 60 percent increase under President Obama. We must stop our national binge of spending, taxing, and borrowing.

We now immediately face a lame duck Congress. The present House of Representatives must hold the line over the next two months and refuse to sign on to even more spending or higher taxes.

The Heritage Foundation has a comprehensive plan—Saving the American Dream—to reduce the size, scope and cost of government. It balances the budget within 10 years while maintaining a strong defense and without raising taxes. To achieve that goal, we must reform America’s entitlement programs—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—if we want to save them.

I understand it will not be easy. But the alternative is unthinkable. We cannot keep spending money we do not have.

Let us do what is best for America. Let us resolve to save the American Dream for our children and our children’s children.

Let us build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish and where an oppressive government does not hold anyone back or down.

Fellow conservatives, now is a time for commitment. Let’s get to work to save America—starting today.

Will you encourage your neighbors, your family, your friends? Will you commit to the battles ahead? Join our fight today.

Onward!

Ed Feulner

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Let's Hope Obama's Left the Back Door Open...and the Front Door....

Obama Left The Back Door Open


By Chris Stirewalt Power Play Published November 06, 2012

“I’ve been screaming at [the Obama campaign] for months that this race was going to be close. They didn’t listen to me.”

-- A Michigan Democratic strategist talking to Power Play about the presidential race in the Great Lakes state.

Democrats have a level of confidence that doesn’t match the closing polls in this longest, nastiest and most expensive presidential race in American history.

The reason, they say, is that not only will President Obama hold on to the Democratic bastions of the north, but that he will also snatch a traditionally red state or two in the process.


The danger for Obama is that in spending so much time and energy on raiding Romney’s turf, he neglected his own firewall.

Even in private, they’re not talking about eking out the narrow victory that the polls suggest. They believe that the president will do what Democrats seldom do and outperform pre-elections polls to win at least two of the three Southeastern swing states: Virginia, North Carolina and Florida

This reflects how deeply Team Obama invested itself in the region, even taking the risk of holding their convention in Charlotte. The idea being that the best way to block Mitt Romney would be to stay on offense and deny him some core Republican electoral votes.

If Obama could deny Romney any of two of those three states – especially Florida – it would be next to impossible for the Republican to win.

And if Obama does win Florida and Virginia tonight, his campaign team will look masterful. Much like the decision to make the campaign so negative and so personal – a referendum on Mitt Romney’s character – the Southeastern strategy will look smart in a win, but dumb and dangerous in a loss.

The danger for Obama is that in spending so much time and energy on raiding Romney’s turf, he neglected his own firewall.

Sure, he has forced Romney to shore up Florida and Virginia with late visits, but the president found himself closing the campaign on defense, not offense. His final day on the trail included stops in what should be reliably blue bastions of Iowa and Wisconsin. Team Obama also deployed its best surrogate, former President Bill Clinton, to Pennsylvania on Monday.

Republicans have exactly one victory in those three states in the past 20 years: a 2004 Iowa victory by George W. Bush. This should be safe territory.

Obama has consistently underestimated Romney as a candidate, never more notably than the October 3 debate, when the president wouldn’t even look at his challenger. There is contempt for Romney but somehow not the sense that he is a serious threat or worthy adversary.

Had they seen Romney more clearly, Obama and his staff might have taken appropriate precautions. The Republican nominee is a moderate former Governor of a northern state who scores very well to the suburban voters who are key to winning in the Rust Belt. And despite efforts to paint him as a radical, he looks very much like the Republican Party that used to do well in the upper Midwest in the past.

Consider Michigan. It’s Romney’s native state and one that his father governed. It also has the right mix of bright-red, small-town Republicans and moderate, persuadable suburbanites to be a possible pickup for Romney. But the Obama campaign never sent help to state Democrats.

And so, a state that Obama won by 16 points is now up for grabs. The final poll conducted for the Detroit FOX affiliate shows Obama actually down a point. It’s been a similar story in Pennsylvania and, of all places, Walter Mondale’s own Minnesota.

Republicans typically outperform pre-election polls when it comes to the real vote. In 2008, for example, John McCain closed the election with a Real Clear Politics Average score of 44.5 percent but ended up with 45.6 percent of the popular vote.

If Romney does that or better, he could slide into some surprising victories in the north and a surprisingly comfortable electoral vote victory.

And if the Republican does pull off an upset today, it will be Obama’s own fault for failing to take his opponent seriously.


Hopefully My Last Day to Post....

I've posted almost 4000 posts...articles with brief commentary that all point to the faults, failures, bad policies of the Barack Hussein Obama Presidency. Whether it's national security, debt, deficits, unemployment, jobs, corruption...these all point to why Obama must not be reelected.

I believe with all my heart that we need a great change in Washington and more than ever before I do believe that Mitt Romney is that change. I do believe we (I) cannot afford another four years of Obama's policies...

I hope that the American people have the good common sense to vote correctly. I am baffled by the polls that seem to indicate that it is very close....how can it be very close????...my hope is that the polls are skewed and that runs in Romney's favor.

My hope is that this is one the very last days for this blog....

Make certain you vote....vote for Mitt.....and get your friends, relatives and associates to vote....

America's Future is at stake...

Steve Kendziera

I agree with Kudlow...After these terrible four years Americans are looking for Optimism....And Romney has that....

Romney's Optimism Will Win

By Larry Kudlow - November 6, 2012

Putting aside all the voter models, there’s one overlooked point worth making with Election Day at hand. Most times in American politics, optimists win, and pessimists lose. I know that’s not always the case. And sometimes it’s hard to distinguish between the two. But in this election, I believe Mitt Romney is the optimist, and Barack Obama is the pessimist. It’s Romney’s election to win.

Parenthetically, in my lifetime, it was Dwight Eisenhower the optimist, Stevenson the pessimist; Kennedy the optimist (“Get America moving again”), Nixon the pessimist; Reagan the quintessential optimist, Carter the pessimist; and going further back in history, FDR the optimist, Hoover and the rest of them the pessimists.

And of course, four years ago, it was Obama the optimist. He was the candidate of hope and change. But he has run such a negative campaign in 2012, right up to the end, that I believe his negativism is translating into pessimism. And that’s not what the beleaguered American people want.

“Voting is the best revenge,” Obama infamously said this past weekend. What did he mean by that? F. Scott Fitzgerald’s line was, “Living well is the best revenge.” But with President Obama, what exactly is this revenge? Revenge against whom? Against what?

Mitt Romney quickly countered that one should vote for the love of country, not revenge. But I wonder, regarding President Obama, is his revenge against the rich? Is it revenge because his class-warfare argument isn’t working? Is it revenge because his policies have not spread the wealth and redistributed income as much as he wants?

Is it revenge against his failure to grow the government even larger? Is it revenge because he wants more than 50 percent of American households to be government dependent? Is it revenge because his big-spending fiscal policies haven’t worked?

The Joint Economic Committee reports that both economic growth and job creation are the worst in modern times, dating back to 1947. So is it revenge for Mr. Obama because he hasn’t had the chance to create even higher spending, taxes, and regulation?

In his closing argument in the Wall Street Journal this weekend, Obama went on several times about raising taxes on individuals and businesses. This is pessimism. You know why? Because optimists believe in the ingenuity, entrepreneurship, and spirit of gifted individuals who are free to use their God-given talents to make our economy and society the best it can be. Not government. That’s the pessimistic view. But individual initiative -- the optimistic view.

Mitt Romney takes this individual view. God granted natural rights to individuals, and it is they who truly run the government and the country. That’s the Romney view. It’s the free-enterprise view. The market view. The human-action view. To my way of thinking, that makes Romney the model optimist.

Look at Romney’s general plan. He sets optimistic goals of 4 percent growth and 12 million new jobs. He will reduce and reform the tax system in ways that will reward, not punish, the success of individuals and companies. He would encourage business, not insult it. He believes free-market capitalism and choice, not the heavy hand of government, are the best solutions to poverty.

When Romney talks about increasing take-home pay, he’s creating a dividing line between a larger private sector and a more restrained government sector. This goes hand in hand with his goal to contain government at 20 percent of GDP. This, too, is optimism.

Even more, when Romney offers to reach across the aisle to find common ground on major issues -- like spending, deficits, debt, tax reform, and entitlement reform -- he is in effect showing an inherent optimism that well-meaning men and women can get things done in order to make the country better.

In effect, just as Reagan did in the crisis of 1980, Romney is saying: We can fix this and solve this with people of good will and strong principles coming together for the first time in many years.

I am not blaming Barack Obama for all the country’s ills. He was dealt a very bad hand. But he chose the wrong course. He relies too much on big government and too little on the enterprise of ordinary people. He is operating a historically discredited model.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is working to restore the freedom model created by our Founders. This model has served the country well for 250-some-odd years. It is fundamentally a belief in people and good common sense. It is profoundly optimistic.

Perhaps I’ll be wrong. But I think optimism wins this election.

Again Something That Government Should Stay OUT OF....

This is what a Obama/Holder Administration will get you for the Next Four Years IF he's reelected....

Obama - The Biggest Liar in America....

IF I WERE CLINTON, I wouldn't be putting truth in the mix with Obama on the ticket...He's the BIGGEST LIAR America Has Ever Seen...




Clinton asks Philadelphia crowd: ‘Who wants a president who will knowingly, repeatedly tell you something he knows isn’t true?’ [VIDEO]

1:54 AM 11/06/2012

Campaigning for President Barack Obama in Philadelphia on Monday afternoon, former President Bill Clinton inadvertently struck a note of irony while attempting to criticize Mitt Romney’s campaign.

“You’re laughing, but who wants a president who will knowingly, repeatedly tell you something he knows is not true?” Clinton asked, after discounting a claim in a recent Romney ad that the Obama administration’s auto bailout hurt American workers.

“When I was a kid, if I got my hand caught in the cookie jar, where it wasn’t supposed to be, I turned red in my face, and I took my hand out of the cookie jar,” Clinton added.

Clinton was impeached in 1998 on one count of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice, after repeatedly telling Americans and a grand jury that he did not have sexual relations with a White House intern.

“You’ve got to give it to Governor Romney. When he gets his hand caught in the cookie jar, he just digs down for more cookies,” Clinton said Monday, to applause. “I want you to send him a message tomorrow. You don’t have to be from Ohio to want your president to tell you the truth, when it comes to jobs for the American people.”


Barack Hussein Obama....Four Years On the Job and He's STILL Incompetent....

November 6, 2012 3:00 A.M. By Alan Reynolds

Obamanomics Explained
Lower tax rates caused the 2008 crisis, so higher tax rates will fix the fiscal cliff.


In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed (November 2) President Obama wrote that “in the eight years after” Bill Clinton left office, “we followed a different path. Bigger tax cuts for the wealthy we couldn’t afford. . . . The result of this top-down economics? Falling incomes, record deficits, the slowest job growth in half a century, and an economic crisis . . .” Obama had taken up that theme during the first presidential debate, arguing that “The approach that Governor Romney’s talking about is the same sales pitch that was made in 2001 and 2003, and we ended up with . . . the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.”

This is a remarkably imaginative theory — albeit one that reveals appalling economic illiteracy. Who else would have imagined that the housing bust and subprime-mortgage crisis were actually caused by cutting the top two tax rates in mid-2003?

In the second debate, Obama repeated that “The last thing we need to do is to go back to the very same policies that got us there” — meaning top marginal tax rates that were slightly reduced, yet still higher than in 1988–92. Instead, he proposed, “for [incomes] above $250,000, we can go back to the tax rates we had when Bill Clinton was president. . . . That’s part of what took us from deficits to surplus. It will be good for our economy and it will be good for job creation.”

This is Obamanomics in a nutshell: Reducing the highest tax rates led to financial crisis, so raising the highest tax rates “will be good for job creation.” Huh? What sort of economics is that? Obama suggests that raising the top two tax rates will turn deficits into surpluses, which would now be good for our economy. Isn’t he the one who used to say huge deficits were a “stimulus”? In reality, of course, raising the top two rates is merely a symbolic gesture of revenge against successful people who often vote the wrong way. It would raise even less revenue (even ignoring its poisonous impact on the economy) than Obamacare hopes to collect from the same over-$250,000 group if they remain foolhardy enough to save and invest.

So, here we are facing a $536 billion tax increase on January 1 — the only “fiscal cliff” that matters — and Obama has been invoking his theory to block any medium-term solution (including the sequestration) that might ever cut federal spending below 23 percent of GDP. Instead, Obama has repeatedly insisted that he will never accept any solution to the looming tax shock that does not raise the top two tax rates. As the Wall Street Journal reports, “Some say a win for the president could spark . . . a selloff in riskier investments such as stocks. That is because . . . President Obama has said he would veto any extension of upper-income tax cuts.”

As strange as Obama’s economic theory is (the idea that lower tax rates cause crises while surpluses stimulate the economy), his perception of the facts also ignores his own Treasury Department. The Obama Treasury estimates that to “reinstate the 36 percent and 39.6 percent tax rates for upper income taxpayers” would raise only $23.1 billion in 2013. That is not even as large as Obamacare’s 3.8 percent surtax on the same “rich” taxpayers’ capital gains, dividends, interest income, and rent. Raising the top two rates offsets barely 4 percent of the tax hikes brought on by the fiscal cliff — scarcely sufficient reason to threaten to veto any bipartisan solution to the remaining $513 billion of looming tax increases.

What about Obama’s plans to raise other tax rates on upper incomes? The Obama Treasury estimates that taxing long-term capital gains at 20 percent “for upper-income taxpayers” (not counting the Obamacare surtax) would raise $5.8 billion in 2013, but lose $5.9 billion in the following two years. That adds up to less than zero. Treasury foolishly expects some small change from raising the dividend tax from 15 percent to 43.4 percent, but the resulting flight from stocks would obviously crash both the market and the economy.

Barack Obama does not understand economics and apparently refuses to listen to those who do.

IF the State-Run Media had been Honest with the American People.....


Obama Ends His Campaign Pitching to a Half Full Arena...You Won't Hear that From the State-Run Media....

Obama Ends Campaign in Half-Empty Arena



by Ben Shapiro5 Nov 2012post a comment

President Obama’s big rally tonight turned out to be just like his first, opening salvo of the 2012 campaign: a half-empty arena in Ohio. According to RealClearPolitics’ Scott Conroy, there were “empty seats scattered around the upper-level of Nationwide Arena … Four years ago, after all, Obama was easily filling venues larger than that …” The event even featured Bruce Springsteen and Jay-Z, and Obama still couldn’t fill it out.

As it turns out, the empty seats didn’t look exactly “scattered.” They looked like substantial portions of the upper bowl of the arena, according to photos tweeted by those in attendance:



Monday, November 5, 2012

Democrat Senator Robert Menendez - Just One more Sleazy, Hypocritical Democratic Politician......He needs to be Sent Home!

Dominican government official: Sen. Bob Menendez a frequent guest at ‘sex, hookers and drinking’ parties

3:23 PM 11/05/2012 Matthew Boyle

A high-level government official from the Dominican Republic told The Daily Caller that New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez and wealthy campaign donor Dr. Salomon Melgen have been having sex parties on the Caribbean nation for years.

“As far as Bob Menendez is concerned he has a very good life there,” the official said during an in-person interview with TheDC. “He likes sexual things.”

The source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he fears retribution from powerful people connected to Menendez and Melgen, has direct knowledge of the goings-on at Melgen’s private villa in the luxurious Dominican Casa de Campo resort. He said Menendez travels with Melgen to the property at least three times per year.

When Menendez is there, he said, they have parties in the three-bedroom villa located in Casa de Campo’s Batey neighborhood. The parties feature “sex, hookers and drinking.”

Menendez has been going to Melgen’s villa “for at least the past three years, probably longer,” the source said.

At one party “about a year ago,” the Dominican government official said, Menendez and Melgen had “seven girls there,” all prostitutes.

“They have sex orgies, lesbian stuff — girls making out with each other and what not.”

“Bob likes that stuff,” the Dominican official said of Sen. Menendez.

About “six, seven or eight” prostitutes join each party. Menendez and Melgen “keep the group small on purpose,” the official said, usually only inviting a third man named “Miguel” — someone “closer to Bob than he is to the doctor.”

A typical Menendez-Melgen blowout “goes pretty late — until they get wasted,” the Dominican government official told TheDC. After ordering food, the men “start drinking, then the girls start coming in and the action begins.”

The source said Melgen “drinks a ton,” so he usually passes out first. Senator Menendez usually follows suit after drinking and having sex until he’s too exhausted to stay awake.

The hookers Menendez and Melgen hire aren’t everyday Dominican working girls. “They’re low-key prostitutes,” the government official told TheDC. “They’re higher-class than the average prostitute.”

Some are high-class call girls. Others are beautiful women with day jobs — “office jobs or something,” the source said — who participate in sex parties for extra income.

Menendez and Melgen, the source said, are careful to make sure the women they hire for sex are not underage.

“This one particular time there was this one girl who was particularly young,” the official said. “Salomon asked for her ID — she said she was 20 and her ID showed that — but he sent her away anyway.”

While Menendez and Melgen have kept their sexual escapades largely under wraps, the Dominican government official told TheDC that stories have surfaced in Dominican tabloids before.

“He [Menendez] is getting to be well known [in the Dominican Republic] for this party mentality because a few times it’s hit the press — the gossip columns,” the source said.

This source confirms what TheDC reported last week: that Menendez underpaid two Dominican prostitutes around Easter this year. Also confirmed was that the senator was in the Dominican Republic during those days.

Menendez, the source said, will likely “den[y] it to try to save his political reputation.”

The source added that while it’s common for Dominican government officials to engage in wild sex escapades in their own country — where prostitution is legal — it’s unusual to see an American elected official doing the same thing.

“It’s so typical down there every government official does it anyways,” the source said. “In the Dominican Republic, having these kinds of affairs is very common.”

A Menendez spokeswoman did not respond to TheDC’s request for comment for this article.


NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN are all STATE-RUN...as evidenced by this disgraceful "journalist" behavior....No Wonder Everyone Watches Fox News....

What President Obama really said in that '60 Minutes' interview about Benghazi

by Bret Baier | November 05, 2012

ANALYSIS: Two days before the election, CBS posted additional portions of a Sept. 12 "60 Minutes" interview where President Obama seems to contradict himself on the Benghazi attack. As the Benghazi investigation gets more attention and focus, CBS is once again adding to the Benghazi timeline.

In the interview, according to the latest portions, Obama would not say whether he thought the attack was terrorism. Yet he would later emphasize at a presidential debate that in the Rose Garden the same day, he had declared the attack an act of terror.

That moment was one of the most intense exchanges in the second presidential debate. Romney was on the offensive on what conservatives believed was a serious vulnerability of Obama -- the handling of the Benghazi attack and what he called it from the beginning.

The town hall questioner asked, "Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?"

Obama did not provide a direct answer, but said: "When I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable, and I am ultimately responsible for what's taking place there, because these are my folks, and I'm the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home, you know that I mean what I say."

Romney pounced, saying, "There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration or actually whether it was a terrorist attack. And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack, and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people."

On rebuttal, Obama seemed rehearsed, but indignant. "The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror... And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as president. That's not what I do as commander in chief."

Governor Romney walked forward and started questioning ...

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.

OBAMA: Please proceed.

ROMNEY: Is that what you're saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It -- he did in fact, sir. So let me -- let me call it an act of terrorism -- (inaudible) --

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.)

CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

ROMNEY: This -- the administration -- the administration -- (applause) -- indicated that this was a -- a reaction to a -- to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.

CROWLEY: They did.

ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group and -- and to suggest -- am I incorrect in that regard? On Sunday the -- your -- your secretary or --

Obama -- who had clearly won the moment (largely thanks to Candy Crowley) -- clearly wanted to move on from that victorious moment -- and quickly.

OBAMA: Candy --

ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador to the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and -- and spoke about how this was a spontaneous reaction.

OBAMA: Candy, I'm -- I'm happy to --

CROWLEY: President, let me -- I --

OBAMA: I'm happy to have a longer conversation about foreign policy.

CROWLEY: I know you -- absolutely. But I want -- I want to move you on.

OBAMA: OK, I'm happy to do that too.

CROWLEY: And also, people can go to the transcripts and --

OBAMA:I just want to make sure that --

CROWLEY: -- figure out what was said and when.

OBAMA:-- you know, all these wonderful folks are going to have a chance to get some -- their questions answered.

Now, we may know why. Soon after that debate exchange, CBS released a previously unseen clip of an interview "60 Minutes'" Steve Kroft did with Obama on Sept. 12 -- the day after the Benghazi attack.

The clip added to the previous sound that had been released and seemed to back up the president's claim that he was referring to the Benghazi attack as a terrorist act in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12. Here's what CBS put out Oct. 19, five weeks after the attack.

KROFT: But there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades, that doesn’t sound like your normal demonstration.

OBAMA: As I said, we’re still investigating exactly what happened, I don’t want to jump the gun on this. But your right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is there are folks involved in this. Who were looking to target Americans from the start. So we’re gonna make sure that our first priority is to get our folks out safe, make sure our embassies are secured around the world and then we are going to go after those folks who carried this out."

After the second debate back and forth, this seemed to back up the president's stance. The only problem? Kroft started his question with "but."

I always thought, it seems that he's following up on a question -- I wonder if there was a question before that question?

This week, we got the CIA timeline of events in which they detail all of the response of the CIA and what they put up the chain of command in the minutes and hours after the attack began. Of all the details of the specific times the CIA contractors respond to the fight, I found this one most interesting:

"1:15 a.m.: CIA reinforcements arrive on a 45-minute flight from Tripoli in a plane they've hastily chartered. The Tripoli team includes four GRS security officers, a CIA case officer and two U.S. military personnel who are on loan to the agency. They don't leave Benghazi airport until 4:30. The delay is caused by negotiations with Libyan authorities over permission to leave the airport, obtaining vehicles, and the need to frame a clear mission plan. The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they correctly suspect is already dead. But the hospital is surrounded by the Al Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Shariah militia that mounted the consulate attack."

So the U.S. Ambassador to Libya is at the Benghazi hospital and suspected dead. The CIA contractors know that, but they can't get there because the hospital is surrounded by the Al Qaeda-linked group Ansar al Shariah, the "militia that mounted the consulate attack."

This goes up the chain communication at 1:15 a.m. on Sept. 12. The White House, the Situation Room, and all of those paying attention to intel channels know that the guys on the ground have determined the group that's behind this. It's the Al Qaeda-linked militia that are still fighting and have the hospital surrounded.

About 12 hours later -- before heading to Las Vegas for a campaign event -- Obama sits down for that "60 Minutes" interview with Steve Kroft.

And Sunday night, 54 days after the attack and almost two weeks after putting out the first additional clip that appeared to back up the president after the second debate, CBS without fanfare posted the rest of the Benghazi question online -- the question before the question.

Remember this is from a president who has been saying he was calling Benghazi a terrorist attack from the very first moment in the Rose Garden. Also, remember what he said in the debate and notice the new part -- underlined in bold.

Click here to see the "60 Minutes" interview.

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.

KROFT: It’s been described as a mob action, but there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades, that doesn’t sound like your normal demonstration.

OBAMA: As I said, we’re still investigating exactly what happened, I don’t want to jump the gun on this. But your right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is there are folks involved in this. Who were looking to target Americans from the start. So we’re gonna make sure that our first priority is to get our folks out safe, make sure our embassies are secured around the world and then we are going to go after those folks who carried this out.

KROFT: There have been reports, obviously this isn’t the first time…there have been attacks on the consulate before. There was an attack against the British ambassador. Do you…this occurred on Sept. 11. Can you tell me why the ambassador was in Benghazi yesterday? Was it to evaluate security at the consulate?

OBAMA: Well keep in mind Chris Stevens is somebody that was one of the first Americans on the ground when we were in the process of saving Benghazi and providing the opportunity for Libyans to create their own democracy. So this is somebody who had been courageous, had been on the ground, had helped to advise me and Secretary Clinton when we were taking our actions against Muammar Qaddafi. And is somebody who is very familiar with the train. He was doing the work that he does as a diplomat helping to shape our policies in the region at a time when things are still fairly fragile. But I think it’s important to note that we have a Libyan government in place that is fully cooperative, that sees the United States as a friend that recognizes we played an important role in liberating Libya and providing the Libyan people an opportunity to forge their own destiny. And in fact we had Libyans who helped protect our diplomats when they were under attack. But this is a country that is still rebuilding in the aftermath of Qaddafi. They don’t necessarily always have the same capabilities that countries with more established governments might have in helping to provide protection to our folks. But beyond that, what I want to do is make sure that we know exactly what happened, how it happened, who perpetrated this action, then we’ll act accordingly."

These are two crucial answers in the big picture. Right after getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does not push back.

Understand that this interview is just hours after he gets out of the Rose Garden.

How after this exchange and the CIA explanation of what was being put up the chain in the intel channels does the Ambassador to the United Nations go on the Sunday shows and say what she says about a spontaneous demonstration sparked by that anti-Islam video? And how does the president deliver a speech to the United Nations 13 days later where he references that anti-Islam video six times when referring to the attack in Benghazi?

There are many questions, and here are a few more.

Why did CBS release a clip that appeared to back up Obama's claim in the second debate on Oct. 19, a few days before the foreign policy debate, and not release the rest of that interview at the beginning?

Why on the Sunday before the election, almost six weeks after the attack, at 6 p.m. does an obscure online timeline posted on CBS.com contain the additional "60 Minutes" interview material from Sept. 12?

Why wasn't it news after the president said what he said in the second debate, knowing what they had in that "60 Minutes" tape -- why didn't they use it then? And why is it taking Fox News to spur other media organizations to take the Benghazi story seriously?

Whatever your politics, there are a lot of loose ends here, a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of strange political maneuvers that don't add up.

That's what reporters should live for, but this time they're not. We will


If Romney is Elected the Attitude of America will Change to the Positive Very Quickly....

Small Business Owner: I’ll Invest In 100 New Jobs – If Romney Wins


November 4, 2012 5:12 PM



ALPHARETTA, Ga. (CBS Atlanta) – If you’re one of many who are currently unemployed, you may be in luck.

According to the Atlanta Business Chronicle, one area real estate company is willing to invest thousands to create new job opportunities.

However, there is a catch.

Frank Duffy of Duffy Realty says he will only create the jobs if Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney wins this Tuesday’s election.

“It’s about a $50,000 investment that we’re willing to make on these new agents,” Duffy told WGCL-TV. “It’ll only happen if there’s a Republican in the White House after Wednesday. If there’s a President-Elect Romney, we’re willing to make that investment.”

Some jobs will still open up at Duffy Realty even if current President Barack Obama is re-elected, though it will not amount to the reported 100 openings Duffy would potentially bankroll if Romney wins.

“I’m not willing to take that $50,000 out of my cash to make that investment,” Duffy added to the station. “I will hire agents piecemeal, five, six, seven, eight at a time, but I’m not going to make the investment going out on a limb to help the unemployed … start their life over.”

He reportedly supports Romney because he feels he’ll be better for small business. Despite his choice in candidate, however, Duffy did tell admit to WGCL-TV that his company has succeeded during President Obama’s time in office.

Giuliani is Correct!....Obama came in and made a speech and then left....He mismanaged this just like every other crisis....

Giuliani on Obama response to Hurricane Sandy: ‘Disgraceful … Where the hell are the generators?’ [VIDEO]

7:38 AM 11/05/2012 David Martosko

At a Sunday gathering of Mitt Romney partisans in West Palm Beach, Florida, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani delivered a blistering attack on President Barack Obama for what he said was a “disgraceful” response to Hurricane Sandy.

“Maybe the first day or two of the storm, the president did a good job,” Giuliani said. “The last three or four days? It’s disgraceful.”

The Brooklyn-born firebrand excoriated the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for neglecting to bring bottled water to the Northeastern U.S. during the days before the superstorm hit.

“It’s disgraceful what he’s done. It’s disgraceful what his FEMA has done,” Giuliani said. “There are people in New York City who don’t have bottles of water like this. See this little bottle of water? They don’t have it in New York. You know why? Because Barack Obama’s FEMA didn’t think to pre-position it.”

“What — they didn’t learn anything from Katrina?”

Watch:



Giuliani was New York City’s mayor when terrorists flew commercial aircraft into the twin towers of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, bringing both skyscrapers crashing to the ground. He recalled on Sunday seeing the federal government, then helmed by President George W. Bush, rush resources to Manhattan — including equipment to keep electricity flowing.

“People in the lower East side, elderly people, had to sleep last night in the cold — some of them at great risk to their health. And his FEMA can’t get generators to Manhattan,” Giuliani said of Obama.

“How long did it take us … to get generators to Ground Zero on September 11? Do you know the power was out in lower Manhattan for four weeks? Now, you watched Ground Zero, didn’t you, on television? And you watched the lights on. You watched them working 24 hours a day. How do you think we did that? We brought generators in!”

“Where the hell are the generators now?” Giuliani shouted. “What good is his FEMA if they can’t get the generators to the people who don’t have electricity? What good is FEMA if they can’t get water to people? What good is FEMA if they can’t get food to people?”

The group Conservative New Media captured video of Giuliani’s speech.

“Go take a look at New York and New Jersey right now, six days later,” Giuliani said. “This man [Obama] has been a disaster on emergency response. … I’ve never seen one as bad as this. I’ve never seen a president walk out as much as this.”

“If George Bush had done this, they’d be impeaching him right now. If George Bush had done this, the media would have been all over him.”

The National Press (And especially the White House Press Corps) has Been Disgraceful ....

TUCKER CARLSON AND NEIL PATEL: Wave goodbye to the Obama media


2:24 AM 11/05/2012 Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel

By tomorrow night we’ll likely know the name of the next president. But we already know the loser in this election cycle: political reporters. They’ve disgraced themselves. Conservatives have long complained about liberal bias in the media, and with some justification. But it has finally reached the tipping point. Not in our lifetimes have so many in the press dropped the pretense of objectivity in order to help a political candidate. The media are rooting for Barack Obama. They’re not hiding it.

Consider Benghazi. An American consulate is destroyed and a US ambassador murdered at a time when the president is boasting at every campaign stop that he has crushed al-Qaida. In an effort not to disrupt this narrative, the White House and the Obama campaign spend weeks claiming the incident was merely a protest over a video, rather than a real terror attack. Then intelligence surfaces showing just the opposite: The killers in Benghazi were no street mob, and Obama knew as much from the beginning.

Imagine if George W. Bush, or even Bill Clinton, had tried something like this during a re-election campaign. The howls from journalists would have been deafening, and unceasing. Instead, Obama has enjoyed every benefit of every doubt from the press every step of the way. Candy Crowley even broke character in the middle of a presidential debate to defend him. From their retirement, former presidents must be looking on in envious bewilderment.

For Obama, treatment like this is standard. Remember his last press conference? On August 20, the president made a rare appearance in the White House briefing room. (Obama has held fewer press conferences even than George W. Bush.) The first question went to Jim Kuhnhenn of the Associated Press. Here’s what Kuhnhenn asked, in full and unedited:

“Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for being here. You’re no doubt aware of the comments that the Missouri Senate candidate, Republican Todd Akin, made on rape and abortion. I wondered if you think those views represent the views of the Republican Party in general. They’ve been denounced by your own rival and other Republicans. Are they an outlier or are they representative?”

In other words: Just how horrible are your opponents? That’s not a question. That’s an assist.

Most telling of all, nobody in the press corps seemed to find Kuhnhenn’s suck-up remarkable, much less objectionable. Reporters who push Obama for actual answers, meanwhile, find themselves scorned by their peers — as we discovered the hard way when our White House reporter dared ask Obama an unapproved question during a presidential statement in the Rose Garden. Months later, longtime Newsweek correspondent Jonathan Alter confronted us on the street and became apoplectic, literally yelling and shaking and drawing a crowd, over the exchange. His complaint: our reporter was “rude” to Obama.

Yep. Good reporters occasionally are impolite, especially to people in power who refuse to answer legitimate questions about their own policies. We don’t hire for table manners. We hire for persistence and toughness and the ability to spot a story among the fluff. We’re traditional that way. It’s the legacy media that have changed.

Earlier this year, we caught the left-wing nonprofit Media Matters coordinating with the White House to attack news organizations, among them Fox and The Daily Caller. We discovered internal Media Matters memos detailing plans to harass reporters, including at their homes. You’d think some in the media would recognize this for what it was — an attempt by politicians to subvert the press — and express outrage. You’d be mistaken.

Last month we found previously unseen video of then-Senator Barack Obama accusing the U.S. government of racism in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Even before our story appeared, liberal reporters tried to minimize and discredit it. Sam Feist, the Washington bureau chief at CNN, even boasted that his network had had possession of the tape for years, apparently unaware that some might wonder why they had never aired it.

We could go on. The point is that many in the press are every bit as corrupt as conservatives have accused them of being. The good news is, it’s almost over. The broadcast networks, the big daily newspapers, the newsweeklies — they’re done. It’s only a matter of time, and everyone who works there knows it. That may be why so many of them seem tapped out, lazy and enervated, unwilling to stray from the same tired story lines. Some days they seem engaged only on Twitter, where they spend hours preening for one another and sneering at outsiders.

By the next presidential cycle most of these people will be gone. They’ll have moved on to academia or think tanks or Democratic senate campaigns, or wherever aging hacks go when their union contracts finally, inevitably get voided. They’ll be replaced by a vibrant digital marketplace filled with hungry young reporters who care more about breaking stories than maintaining access to some politician or regulator.

All of this was probably inevitable, but it came faster than expected. Through their dishonesty the legacy media hastened their own end. Their moral authority has evaporated. So has their business model. Wave them goodbye on the way out.


Obama...Ending His Campaign with a Sputter...Not a Bang!

November 5, 2012 3:00 A.M. By Victor Davis Hanson

Obama, the Virtual Challenger
Making no attempt to defend his record, he talks of what he “would” do in a second term.


In these last days of the race, Obama counts on the news of Sandy turning attention away from Romney’s October momentum, to photo-ops of himself in a monogrammed bomber jacket trying to look presidential. The more Benghazi creeps into the news, the stranger the silence from the Obama administration. But the real story is that almost all of the hope of 2008 has ended in the fear and loathing of 2012.

Obama has made no real attempt to defend much of what he has done in the last four years. It is as if his first term never existed — no 70 percent approval rating, no Democratic House, no Democratic Senate. Instead we are back to the future as a young Lincolnesque senator, with a clean slate, has come to save us from George W. Bush’s recession, which, we now learn, was caused by plutocrat Mitt Romney all along. Obama is the perpetual challenger, once more running against Bobby Rush, Alan Keyes, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain on all the wonderful things he would do if only he were elected.

On energy, suddenly the president has dropped all mention of “wind, solar, and 5 million new green jobs.” Under the radar, he may be pursuing cap-and-trade and shutting down coal plants by executive orders, but officially Obama is bragging that the oil and gas industry ignored him, drilled like crazy on private lands, and — in spite of him, not because of him — have vastly upped U.S. fossil-fuel production. And suddenly that is a good thing. His new energy message seems to have been reduced to something like, “Vote for me, because I failed to stop private energy companies, and so we are much better off.” It is as if cap-and-trade, the Chevy Volt, and Solyndra never existed.

There is the same disconnect on the economy. The recent dismal jobs report fell on deaf ears. The media do not care that the unemployment rate is worse now — after over $5 trillion borrowed and wasted — than when Obama took office four years ago. Old Democratic slogans like “It’s the economy, stupid,” and “jobless recovery” apply only when the GDP growth rate is over 3 percent, not hovering closer to 1 percent, and when unemployment is well below 6 percent, not nearly 8 percent. There is not much defense of Obamacare, or the stimulus — whose expenditures to this day cannot be defined, much less defended. Van Jones and “green jobs” are ancient history. Food-stamp statistics, new disability filings, and plunging per capita income are irrelevant and supposedly just right-wing talking points.

Instead, Obama is running as the challenger, using the hypothetical “I would” or the future-tense “I will” — as if it is Romney who has a record of failed presidential leadership. In short, Obama’s economic message is that we can reduce our defense budget — given sudden world tranquillity — and, at last, nation-build in America through radically new ideas of spending trillions of dollars in borrowed money.


The Obama notion on race, promulgated always by surrogates, is that a pro-Obama good 2008 vote proved that America in theory might not be racist, but a bad 2012 vote would confirm that it still is. No mention was ever made that Obama received more white votes than had any Democratic presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter. So the Reverend Joseph Lowery — who, with the exit of the president’s old pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, gave the benediction at Barack Obama’s inauguration in 2009 with soaring platitudes of racial healing and in turn received the Medal of Freedom from him — just announced, “I don’t know what kind of a n—– wouldn’t vote with a black man running.” He then went on to declare that he once again believed, as he had insisted as a youth, that white people were “going to Hell.” When criticized, the Medal of Freedom winner said this was meant as a joke, but one may question how appropriate such a joke is in this new age of racial healing.

Jesse Jackson has likewise dropped all the pretense of his rainbow coalition. This last week he branded tea-partiers as racists of a “Fort Sumter Tea Party” who wished to “overthrow our government, engage in secession, sedition, segregation, and slavery.” This is reminiscent of Joe Biden’s “put y’all back in chains.” These are the logical wages of four years of Skip Gates editorializing, “punish our enemies,” the son who would have looked like Trayvon Martin, a nation of “cowards,” and “my people.”

As far as foreign affairs go, there are no longer any boasts about the Middle East and the Arab Spring, no longer any leaks about a possible Syrian “humanitarian” intervention. We hear nothing of a soon-to-be-nuclear Iran — other than a desperate eleventh-hour Iranian attempt to affect the election by false promises to reduce enrichment, a measure that the theocracy scoffed at for four years. The world’s rogues — Putin, Ch├ívez, Castro — have weighed in on the election, in the manner that school bullies each day smile at the freshman with pockets full of change.

U.S. foreign policy has been reduced to one boast, “I killed Osama bin Laden, and that is all ye need to know.” As in the case of Watergate, Benghazi and the murder of an ambassador and three other Americans will be in the news after the election, given that even the Obama White House and a toadyish media cannot suppress a lie of this magnitude. But for now Obama makes no effort to defend his reset foreign policy; it just exists as a sort of nothingness.

The same is true of the new civility. If Obama should win, he will, after the election, return to his sermons about negative advertising and promulgate his fables on bipartisanship. But for now, the crudity continues: Romney is a bullsh**ter. Take “revenge” by voting against Romney — reminding us that “get in their face” and “bring a gun to a knife fight” were characteristic, not aberrant. A gross ad is aired, comparing a vote for Obama with one’s first attempt at sexual intercourse. Child choruses sing of Romney the villain, the polluter, the monster. David Axelrod says that for the middle class, Paul Ryan’s proposed budget is “like a choice between a punch to the nose and a knee to the groin.” In an ad produced by Michael Moore, nursing-home dwellers talk of burning down America and punching Mitt Romney in the groin, replete with the usual four-letter words. Obama is supposedly oblivious to all this, as he counts on its stirring up his base. Indeed, no doubt he has already written his victory speech for November 7 — “It’s time to stop this negative infighting. There is no red, no blue America.” Blah, blah, blah . . .

What then is Obama’s strategy in this campaign — other than retention of the perks and power of office — given that he runs on hypotheticals as a virtual challenger? In fact, there are just two implicit themes: First, America is a different country now, and “they” (fill in the blanks — backward white people, privileged males, wealthy people, business people, misogynists, racists, xenophobes, homophobes, etc.) will put you into figurative chains without Obama to stop them. So we have Washington Post columnist Colbert King warning that Mitt Romney is the new Andrew Johnson, who, following a Christ-like Lincoln-Obama figure, would once again turn over the country to the states-rights racists. Of course, Mr. King keeps mum on the recent Joseph Lowery racist diatribes and Jesse Jackson invective. We are living in the age of a new brooding, petulant Nixon, who seeks power by talking of unity while constantly creating fissures of disunity.

Second, all the vast increases in disability insurance, unemployment insurance, and food stamps, the “free” health care, the government takeovers of money-losing companies, and the borrowed stimulus for state pensions and benefits — all that is preferable to a jobs-creating, free-market prosperous economy that enriches too few and empowers too many. In contrast, the new dependency can continue and expand only under Obama, who has the courage to make “them” (see above) pay their fair share for it.

Those messages are the gist of the Obama campaign — as if $5 trillion in new debt, Benghazi, permanently high unemployment, and an EU economy in America simply never existed.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The End of Sparta, a novel about ancient freedom.

The Next President and the Supreme Court...

One of the Two Big Reasons to Vote for Mitt Romney this time....He will do a better job appointing people to the high court (God know we know what Obama has done)...and he will get our out of control debt under control which over the long term protects our kids and grandkids....

The Next President and the Supreme Court

By Edwin Meese III

Every vote counts. And this year, it could count double. One vote could decide both the immediate election and the course of constitutional law for decades to come.

Just ask the senior federal officials responsible for our security immediately after 9/11 who were sued years later by Javaid Iqbal. During the investigation into the attacks, FBI officials identified Iqbal as a suspect of high interest and detained him in New York. He sued alleging that high government officials, including Attorney General John Ashcroft, personally ordered that he be discriminated against on the basis of religion, race, or national origin.

Iqbal provided no facts in support of his conspiracy theory. When his case finally reached the Supreme Court, five justices properly, but narrowly, rejected his speculative claims that would have cleared the way for plaintiffs’ lawyers to embark on fishing expeditions in hopes of winning windfall damages from current and former federal officials. Only a single vote in the high court kept Iqbal and countless others with no proof of any wrongdoing outside their own imagination from subjecting government officials to depositions and other harassing litigation tactics. Though the chance of hitting a punitive-damages jackpot is small, the prospect of such an award would have ensured a steady flow of rapacious court challenges.

Americans naturally consider many issues in casting their vote for President. But they should remember how important their votes will be in deciding the nation’s constitutional course. Neither presidential candidate has made his criteria for judicial nominations much of an issue during this campaign, but whom we select as President may well determine the viability of the rule of law for the foreseeable future.

The right approach was best articulated by Ronald Reagan. As he said on the day that Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia were sworn in:

[Our Founders] settled on a judiciary that would be independent and strong, but one whose power would also, they believed, be confined within the boundaries of a written Constitution and laws. The framers of our Constitution believed…that the judiciary they envisioned would be “the least dangerous” branch of the Government, because, as Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, it had “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” The judicial branch interprets the laws, while the power to make and execute those laws is balanced in the two elected branches. And this was one thing that Americans of all persuasions supported.

Justice Felix Frankfurter put it this way: “the highest exercise of judicial duty is to subordinate one's personal pulls and one's private views to the law."

Sadly, too few judges today understand their proper role. Rather than exercising judgment, they impose will. This form of judicial activism substitutes personal preferences for the command of law. The rule of law is not an infinitely flexible tool that allows the bench to impose its policy choices on the citizenry. Rather, it is a defined set of boundaries derived from the text of the Constitution and accompanying statutes.

The meaning of those texts was fixed at the time of adoption; any other approach rejects democracy for oligarchy. Words, in context, have real, binding meanings. Even if reasonable people disagree about some hard cases, judges should aim to discern and apply the original public meaning of the text at issue rather than what they want it to mean.

In recent decades, judges have made many decisions unconstrained by the rule of law. Far too often the Supreme Court itself, by a 5-4 vote, contorts the text of the Constitution or a statute to reach a preferred policy result, substituting its own judgment for that of the legislature or the Framers.

Consider a small sampling of recent decisions where a single, misconceived vote mattered.



In McCreary County v. ACLU, the 5-4 majority held that the display of the Ten Commandments in a county courthouse violated the Establishment Clause because it was supposedly not sufficiently integrated with a secular or historical message.

In Kelo v. City of New London, a thin majority decided that a city may take private property—including people’s homes—and give it to a big corporation, supposedly to generate more tax revenue. This decision ignored the clear constitutional requirement that property be taken only for “public use.”

In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Court usurped a political question from the legislative and executive branches and jumped into the middle of the global warming regulatory debate. In so doing, it overturned the Environmental Protection Agency’s reasoned decision not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and required the EPA to adopt a regulation.

And no discussion of controversial 5-4 decisions would be complete without mentioning the Court’s decision in NFIB v. Sebelius last June. There, a bare majority upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act under the guise of reading its individual mandate as a tax.


As Americans go to the polls this month, they should ponder President Reagan’s words: “Those who sit in the Supreme Court interpret the laws of our land and truly do leave their footprints on the sands of time. Long after the policies of Presidents and Senators and Congressmen of any given era may have passed from public memory, they'll be remembered.” Every vote does, indeed, count.

Edwin Meese III, the former U.S. Attorney General, is the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Sunday, November 4, 2012

Same Old Rhetoric...Same Old Stonewalling....Obama's Got to Go!!!!



Fox News: David Axelrod was in the unfortunate position again today of having to defend the Obama administration’s unwillingness to answer questions about Benghazi. He did so by…not answering questions about Benghazi. On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace pressed Axelrod on whether the President knew about the earlier attacks on the Benghazi consulate and requests for enhanced security

All Obama is Talking About andThinking About is His Own Reelection....And America Knows That....

One More Political Analyst Projects that Romney will Win Big....

George Will predicts 321-217 Romney landslide

11:21 AM 11/04/2012
Jeff Poor

Add Washington Post George Will to the landslide column along with Fox News Channel’s Dick Morris and the Washington Examiner’s Michael Barone.

On this weekend’s broadcast of “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” on ABC, Will revealed his prediction and added a bonus surprise by saying traditional Democratic state Minnesota would go for Romney as well.

“I’m projecting Minnesota to go for Romney,” Will said. “It’s the only state that’s voted democratic in nine consecutive elections, but this year, there’s marriage amendment on the ballot that will bring out the evangelicals and I think could make the difference.”


NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Suports Mitt Romney....

Big Newspapers that supported Obama four years ago are continuing to support Romney for this election....


Our choice for America’s future: The Daily News endorses Mitt Romney for president

Four years after endorsing Obama, News finds the hopes of those days went unfulfilled


Updated: Sunday, November 4, 2012, 1:05 AM. Charles Dharapak/AP

America’s heart, soul, brains and muscle — the middle- and working-class people who make this nation great — have been beset for too long by sapping economic decline.

So, too, New York breadwinners and families.

Paychecks are shrunken after more than a decade in which the workplace has asked more of wage earners and rewarded them less. The decline has knocked someone at the midpoint of the salary scale back to where he or she would have been in 1996.

Then, the subway fare, still paid by token, was $1.50, gasoline was $1.23 a gallon and the median rent for a stabilized apartment was $600 a month. Today, the base MetroCard subway fare is $2.25, gasoline is in the $3.90 range and the median stabilized rent is $1,050, with all the increases outpacing wage growth.

A crisis of long duration, the gap between purchasing power and the necessities of life widened after the 2008 meltdown revealed that the U.S. economy was built on toothpicks — and they snapped.

Nine million jobs evaporated. The typical American family saw $50,000 vanish from its net worth, and its median household income dropped by more than $87 a week. New Yorkers got off with a $54 weekly hit.

Our leaders owed us better than lower standards of living, and we must have better if the U.S. is to remain a beacon of prosperity where mothers and fathers can be confident of providing for their children and seeing them climb higher on the ladder.

Revival of the U.S. as a land of opportunity and upward mobility is the central challenge facing the next President. The question for Americans: Who is more likely to accomplish the mission — Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?

Four years ago, the Daily News endorsed Obama, seeing a historic figure whose intelligence, political skills and empathy with common folk positioned him to build on the small practical experience he would bring to the world’s toughest job. We valued Obama’s pledge to govern with bold pragmatism and bipartisanship.

The hopes of those days went unfulfilled.

Achingly slow job creation has left the U.S. with 4.3 million fewer positions than provided incomes to Americans in 2007. Half the new jobs have been part-time, lower-wage slots, a trend that has ruinously sped a hollowing of the middle class.

The official unemployment rate stands at 7.9%, marking only the second month below 8% after 43 months above that level. Worse, add people who are working part-time because they have no better choice and the rate leaps to almost 15%. Still worse, add 8 million people who have given up looking for employment and the number who are out of jobs or who are cobbling together hours to scrape by hits some 23 million people.

Only America’s social safety net, record deficits and the Federal Reserve’s unprecedented low-interest policies have kept the label Great Depression II on the shelf.

New Yorkers have fared no better. The state is alone among the 50 in suffering significantly rising unemployment over the last 12 months, with the rate now at 8.9%. The city’s pain index is 8.8%, and the five boroughs have been trading down in salaries

The trend over the Obama years: Goodbye to middle- and high-income jobs in New York City; hello to positions that pay less than $45,000 a year.

Recovery from the disaster that Obama inherited was going to take time. But four years is a long, long slog. Had the President guided a typical upswing, America would by now have regained essentially all its lost jobs. At his present pace, Obama would reach that milestone in the third year of a second term.

The regrettable truth is that Obama built a record of miscalculations and missed opportunities.

First came emergency economic stimulus. Because Obama gave free rein to House and Senate Democrats in deciding how to spend $800 billion, the legislation was heavily designed to satisfy the party’s constituencies and hunger for social programs, and inadequately weighted toward job-multiplier projects like building and repairing bridges and railroads — including subways.

After originally projecting that the program would produce 4 million more jobs than the country now has, along with a 5% jobless rate, Obama pleads that he saved Americans from more dire straits.

Next came Obamacare. While the country bled jobs, the President battled to establish universal health insurance — without first restraining soaring medical bills. Then he pushed one of the largest social programs in U.S. history through a Democratic-controlled Congress without a single Republican vote.

R.I.P. and never to be resurrected — Obama’s promised bipartisanship.

While the legislation has yet to take full effect, the typical family’s health insurance premium has risen and many businesses will experience a hike of $70 per week per employee, further restraining wages or producing part-time jobs that lack coverage.

Next came trillion-dollar deficits. Deep in the hole thanks to former President George W. Bush, Obama helped run up a $5 trillion increase in the national debt.

Along the way, he appointed a bipartisan commission to devise a plan for restoring America’s fiscal health, but he abandoned the panel’s menu of spending cuts, entitlement reductions and tax reform. Finally, Obama failed to close a deal with Republican House Speaker John Boehner for budgetary discipline and a path to job creation.

That was 15 months ago. Since then, Obama has presided over paralysis.

There was, of course, more to the President’s record than economic stewardship.

Entries on the plus side of the ledger include Obama’s Race to the Top school reforms, withdrawal from Iraq and his aggressive drone strikes against Islamist radicals. And then there is, or was, Osama Bin Laden. Obama ordered the mass murderer’s dispatch in a presidential act of courage for the ages.

In deficit on the balance sheet, he stepped to the front in ratcheting up sanctions against Iran only after the country’s regime had moved ominously close to nuclear weapon capability, and he executed a misguided strategy for achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians that left the parties further from a settlement

But those pluses and minuses pale in comparison with middle-class prospects in recommending whether to entrust Obama or Romney with the future.

Romney’s approach is the stronger.

Critically, he has tailored his policies to create jobs, jobs, jobs.

The centerpieces of Romney’s plan call for spending restraint and rewriting the Internal Revenue code to lower rates by 20%. He would make up much of the lost revenue by eliminating deductions and loopholes that have made the tax system a thicket of strangling complexities. On its own, paring the personal and corporate rules to the basics would catalyze business and consumer spending.

Romney has pledged that, as a group, the wealthy will bear no less a share of the burden than they do now, while individuals lower down would enjoy breaks. Many contest as mathematically impossible the Republican’s ability to cut rates and balance the books through tax reform. He disputes the points but, in an encouraging show of pragmatism, he has made clear that moving the nation toward balance may require sacrificing the size of his rate cut.

Romney’s energy plan calls for reemphasizing oil and natural gas production, in a shift away from Obama’s tilt toward trying to develop wind and solar into workable alternatives.

His proposal for Medicare would permit future retirees to choose between tried-and-true health care and private insurance to produce savings through competition. It took political bravery even to broach such concepts, and they are well worth exploring.

His immigration strategy entails markedly increasing visas for highly skilled workers, such as engineers and computer scientists, who are in short supply in the United States — and are proven jobs generators. Obama let economic energy go by the boards by declining to up these H1-B work permits.

No, Romney’s not perfect. His overall immigration policy falls below comprehensive reform, and he’s no friend of gun control. But, under these circumstances, growing the economy takes precedence.

Offering a rosy vision of a country already on the rise, Obama argues that he would lead a resurgence by staying the course. He posits that spending in areas such as education and clean energy would be beneficial, and he sees raising taxes on high-income earners as key to “balanced” deficit reduction. Each on its own is attractive, but the whole comes up short.

The presidential imperative of the times is to energize the economy and get deficits under control to empower the working and middle classes to again enjoy the fruits of an ascendant America.

So The News is compelled to stand with Romney.