All Da King's Men —

The Weird World Of Obama

by Da King on April 2, 2012

Here's another steaming pile of intelligence from our President:

We won’t win the race for new jobs and new businesses and middle-class security if we cling to this same old, worn-out, tired `you’re on your own’ economics that the other side is peddling. It was tried in the decades before the Great Depression. It didn’t work then. It was tried in the last decade. It didn’t work. You know, the idea you would keep on doing the same thing over and over again, even though it’s been proven not to work. That’s a sign of madness.” — Barack Obama

From the above comments, one wonders how the United States Of America ever managed to become the world's premier superpower without the brilliance of Barack Obama showing us the way. How did we ever create jobs, a middle class, and the richest country in world history with our "on your own" economics (that some would call 'liberty' and 'free markets') ??? It must have been some kind of miracle, akin to the parting of the Red Sea. We're sure lucky Obama appeared like the Messiah to save us from our "old, worn-out, tired" failing ways. One hopes a second Obama term will lead us finally to that long-awaited, elusive, successful America, to a more glorious government-dominated future, like that of, say, Cuba, where they don't have any of that nasty wealth inequality (because nobody has any wealth).

Let's look at little closer at some of the Messiah's claims…

"this same-old, worn-out, tired "you're on your own' economics…was tried in the decades before the Great Depression. It didn’t work then".

Things sure must have been bad in America in the decades before the Great Depression, eh ? In fact, things were SO bad here that record numbers of people immigrated to America for the opportunities she presented them. Things were so bad here that 20 million immigrants flocked to "you're on your own" America between 1880-1924.

Things were so bad that the decade just prior to the Great Depression was known as The Roaring 20's, a period of sustained economic prosperity. In the 1920's, unemployment averaged 5.2% (that is considered near full employment). The prior decade, the 1910's, is when America first became a world leader, and somehow we managed to win the "war to end all wars", World War I. How that happened without Obama in charge is anyone's guess. Must have been another miracle. Unemployment in the 1910's was between 3-6%. After World War I, there was a severe mini-depression in 1920-1921, but somehow we recovered from that in eighteen months without spending the country into oblivion, as Obama is doing today.

From 1900-1930, all kinds of technological advances were introduced in our "you're on your own" economy. Among them – sonar, color photography, the automobile, the helicopter, motion pictures, the radio tuner, Geiger counters, toasters, air conditioning, television, liquid-fueled rockets, frozen food, the jet engine, and too many other inventions to mention. How all this happened without the guiding hand of Barack Obama, I have no idea. Must be a third miracle.

Our "same-old, worn-out, tired 'you're on your own' economics" served this country pretty well, I'd say. Virtually ever other country wished they'd had things so good.

But my favorite part of the Messiah's comment comes next:

"this same-old, worn-out, tired "you're on your own' economics…It was tried in the last decade. It didn't work".

Obama is referring to the Bush years here. Bush was so "you're on your own" that federal spending DOUBLED during his years as President. Bush, the "compassionate conservative", increased spending nearly across the board. The Mercatus Center reports:

During his eight years in office, President Bush oversaw a large increase in government spending. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ. In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent.

During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent.

One reason offered for these large budget increases is that entitlement programs are growing rapidly. Although Social Security and Medicare spending growth outpaced most other programs in the mid-1990s, spending growth in discretionary programs has accelerated in the last 15 years, especially during Bush’s two terms. Between FY2002 and FY2009, discretionary spending rose 96 percent.

Some argue that federal spending during the Bush years was so high because security needs drove up the budget. It is true that defense spending increased dramatically since the late-1990s, particularly since 9/11 and the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, nondefense spending increased too. Some also argue that much of the increase in nondefense spending stemmed from increases in homeland security spending. Whether this is true, the overall rapid rise of discretionary spending indicates that, here too, the administration and Congress made no trade-offs in the budget. If the administration and Congress wanted more security spending and wanted to be fiscally responsible, they should have found savings elsewhere in the budget.

President Bush added thousands of new federal subsidy programs during his eight years in office. In 2008, there were 1,816 subsidy programs in the federal budget that spread hundreds of billions of dollars annually to special interest groups such as state governments, businesses, nonprofit groups, and individuals. The number of subsidy programs has grown by 30 percent since 2000 and by 54 percent since 1990.

Bush also created a brand new Medicare entitlement, Part D, the prescription drug benefit.

This is what Obama pathetically claims is a "you're on your own" economy under Bush. What a joke. Bush was a big spender, just like Obama, and just like Obama, Bush added nearly $5 trillion to the national debt. The only difference is, Obama is running up debt twice as fast as Bush did.

In conclusion, when Obama says "doing the same thing over and over again, even though it’s been proven not to work. That’s a sign of madness"…he is correct. What he doesn't tell you is, the madness belongs to Obama. He's the one doing the same things over and over. He's doing the same things Bush did almost down the line, only this time on steroids – huge spending increases, wars, big deficits and debt, huge entitlement expansions, etc.

Don't believe in the madness of King ~~George~~ Barack. He's selling pure snake oil, and he thinks you're too stupid to notice.

{ 91 comments }

Weekly Wrap-up

by Da King on March 31, 2012

in justice,liberalism,race relations

Olby Out: Al Gore's Current TV has canned it's lead purveyor of left-wing hate speech, Keith Olbermann. Awww. I'll sure miss Olby, even though I haven't watched him since he was on that other left-wing hate speech station, MSNBC (quick MSNBC hate speech example – last night Chris Matthews' show was calling Florida's Stand Your Ground law the "Kill At Will" law, which of course it is not. I don't know how anyone watches that crap). Olby will be replaced by the disgraced former Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer. You really can't make this stuff up. I assume Malik Zulu Shabazz wasn't available.

Escalate: Speaking of MSNBC, former Democratic presidential candidate, riot inciter, race baiter, framer of innocent people, MSNBC talk show host, and lynch mob leader, Al Sharpton, has called for an escalation of civil disobedience if George Zimmerman isn't arrested for the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Sharpton said he will take things to the next "level", all peacefully, of course. Maybe someone should inform Sharpton that the shooting is under investigation at both the state and FBI level, and if the facts warrant it, Zimmerman WILL be arrested. The last time I checked, Al Sharpton was not the American justice system.

Don't Escalate: More sensible civil rights leaders than Sharpton backed away from his remarks:

Turner Clayton, the Seminole County chapter president of the NAACP, reacted immediately to Sharpton's warning, saying, "We hope that the citizens of Sanford will govern themselves accordingly. We are not calling for any sanctions, against any business or anyone else. And, of course, what Rev. Sharpton does, that's strictly the [National] Action Network. We can't condone that part of the conversation, if that's what he said."

Kudos to Mr. Clayton.

Hoodie Hoods: Former Black Panther Party leader and current Democratic Congressman from Chicago, Bobby Rush, made a spectacle of himself by putting a hoodie on in the halls of Congress. That was a show of support for Trayvon Martin. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), applauded Rep. Rush for his "courage", whatever that means. How much courage does it take to put on a shirt ? Meanwhile, back in Rush's home district, men wearing hoodies opened fire in a convenience store:

13 shot, 2 dead in Chicago in six hours Thursday night

The worst shooting occurred around 6 p.m. Thursday when two men in hooded sweatshirts opened fire inside a convenience store in the 1400 block of West 79th Street in the Gresham neighborhood, police said.
One man was killed and five others were wounded. The victims ranged in age from 16 to 24. The gunmen fled in an SUV and police continued searching for them this mornin

No word on when Al Sharpton, Bobby Rush, and company will show up to protest these shootings. They'll probably have to run the victims and perpetrators through their color-coded outrage meters first.

Who's Shooting Who ?: While I'm on the subject of race and crime, let's look at a few statistics. According to the Department of Justice, of total homicide victims in 2009, there were 6,568 white people murdered and 6,556 black people murdered. That means black people, who only represent a little over 12% of the population compared to white people's 75%, are being murdered at rates far, far above the homicide rate for white people. About six times as many blacks are being murdered, percentage wise. The difference is shocking. There's definitely a problem here. Now, let's look at who is shooting whom. According to the same 2009 DOJ statistics, of the homicide perpetrators, 5,286 were white, and 5,890 were black. Thus, blacks are also murdering people at rates far higher than whites. Mostly, black people are murdering other black people, but I don't see Al Sharpton protesting over that. As for interracial crime statisitcs, in 2009 single victim/single offender murders, there were 454 instances of a black killing a white, and 204 instances of a white killing a black. This means black on white homicides, percentage wise, are also far higher than the reverse. Doesn't exactly fit the Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson narrative, does it ? But these are just statistics I'm citing, and unlike Jesse and Al, statistics don't have an agenda. If Jesse and Al really want to fix the problems black people face in today's society, it would be nice if they actually acknowledged what the problems are.

Biden Time: Out on the old campaign trail, VP Joe Biden said something about a global minimum tax:

"For years, American manufacturers have faced one of the highest tax rates in the world. We want to reduce that by over 20 percent. We want to drop the rate, particularly, for high-tech manufacturers like you … even further than the 20 percent," Biden said. "We want to create a global minimum tax, because American taxpayers shouldn't be providing a larger subsidy for investing abroad than investing at home."

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney jumped all over Biden's remark:

“Raising taxes on American job creators is apparently not enough to satisfy President’s Obama’s trillion-dollar spending addiction. Instead of promoting pro-growth tax policies that provide businesses with the economic freedom to grow and prosper, he is backing a ‘global tax’ that would harm American competitiveness," Romney said in a statement released by the campaign. "My plan to reform the tax code by cutting rates and encouraging reinvestment here in America is the right way to jump-start an economic recovery and create new American jobs.”

Biden was most likely talking about the tax Obama wants to impose on multinational companies who ship jobs and profits overseas to avoid paying taxes, and in true Bidenesque fashion, Joe called it a global tax. Then again, it's often difficult to tell what Biden is talking about.

Biden Time, Part II: Joe says Obama has faced harder decisions than FDR did (not kidding):

“I’ve watched him make decisions that would make another man or woman’s hair curl,” Biden told the crowd of 150 inside the Italian Community Center in Milwaukee, according to a pool reporter on scene.

Biden, who has said he’s the last man in the room with Obama before a tough call, often attests that his boss has a “backbone like a ramrod.”

And today he said that mettle — and the “serious problems” Obama faced upon taking office — put the president in a class of his own.

“I think I can say … no president, and I would argue in the 20th century and including now the 21st century, has had as many serious problems which are cases of first-instance laid on his table,” Biden said. “Franklin Roosevelt faced more dire consequences, but in a bizarre way it was more straightforward.

Biden also discussed the decision by Obama to authorize a covert raid into Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, noting that nearly the entire national security team — including Biden — advised against the raid. Obama made the call anyway.

The only one on the team who agreed with the president, said Biden, was then-CIA director Leon Panetta.

“Nobody but one person in that entire apparatus said go,” Biden said.”

I hate to clue Biden in, but Obama's hair already has curled. That's pretty common among white black folk (if Zimmerman is "white hispanic", then Obama is "white black"). And I seriously doubt FDR's Normandy invasion was an easier call than taking out Bin Laden with Seal Team Six, no matter what the voices in Biden's head may be telling him. Joe should go have a nice cup of tea, and maybe watch The Biggest Loser on the teevee. Except for making the right call on Bin Laden, all Obama's done is spend a bunch of other people's money, run up debt, and take away American liberty. Any tinpot tyrant can do that much.

{ 85 comments }

Democrats On An Escalator

by Da King on March 30, 2012

in Democrats,personal responsibility

This one is self-explanatory:

Those poor victims.

{ 45 comments }

Budget Plans To Nowhere

by Da King on March 29, 2012

in Democrats,economics,GOP

On wednesday, the House of Representative voted on three budget plans. Here are the results:

- A budget based on President Obama's 2013 budget plan was defeated by a unanimous vote of 414-0. Not even one Democrat voted for it. This is a similar outcome to the last Obama budget Congress voted on, over in the Senate in 2011. That one was defeated by a unanimous vote of 97-0. Again, not one Democrat voted with the President. Who says this President can't unite the country ?

- A budget based on the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission was rejected by a vote of 382-38, with support from only 16 Republicans and 22 Democrats. That bipartisanship thing is really working out well, eh ?

- A budget from the Congressional Black Caucus also failed, by a vote of 303-103.

The House went back to work on thursday:

- A budget from Democrat Chris Van Hollen (MD) was defeated by a vote of 262-163. I have to take moment here to congratulate Rep. Van Hollen just for putting forth a budget proposal. His colleagues in the Senate haven't been able to pass a budget in over three years. Thanks for doing your job, Mr. Van Hollen. Would you please phone Sen. Majority So-called Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and see it you can light a fire under his rear end ? I'm beginning to wonder if Reid fell into a coma three years ago and nobody noticed.

- A budget plan from the Republican Study Committee (RSC) was rejected by a vote of 285-136.

- A budget from Republican Paul Ryan (WI) was reject…whoa, wait a minute…am I reading this right ?…Ryan's budget PASSED the House by a vote of 228-191. This budget will now go on to the Senate, where the comatose Reid will either forget all about it, or the Democrat-led Senate will vote it down like they did last year, and like they have voted down every Republican budgetary proposal that has come out of the House during President Obama's tenure.

I guess the RSC budget was too radical for Democrats and many Republicans, because it balanced the budget in five years. Balanced budgets are considered radical according to today's upside-down political Newspeak. The Ryan plan was more acceptable to the "fiscally responsible" Republicans, because it balances the budget by, like, stardate 3249 or something. The Democrats still thought that was waaay too crazy.

And so here we remain, America, in the same place as before, on the road to nowhere, with federal debt piling up faster than a speeding bullet. This is all so depressing…I feel like listening to a Beatles tune to cheer myself up. Hit it, boys !

He's a real nowhere man,
Sitting in his Nowhere Land,
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody.

Doesn't have a point of view,
Knows not where he's going to,
Isn't he a bit like you and me?

Nowhere Man please listen,
You don't know what you're missing,
Nowhere Man,
the world is at your command!

He's as blind as he can be,
Just sees what he wants to see,
Nowhere Man,
can you see me at all?

Nowhere Man, don't worry,
Take your time, don't hurry,
Leave it all till somebody else
lends you a hand!

Doesn't have a point of view,
Knows not where he's going to,
Isn't he a bit like you and me?

Nowhere Man please listen,
you don't know what you're missing
Nowhere Man, the world is at your command!

He's a real Nowhere Man,
Sitting in his Nowhere Land,
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody.
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody.
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody!

{ 46 comments }

EPA To Stop Coal Plant Construction

by Da King on March 28, 2012

in energy,environment,White House administration

Because the Obama administration couldn't get Cap And Trade passed through a resistant Congress, it has turned to another legislative branch of the federal government (though we thought there was only supposed to be one), which is known as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA is a curious federal entity. It can make it's own rules, and those rules don't have to be approved by the constitutionally authorized legislative branch. That makes the EPA sort of an Americanized version of the old Soviet Politburo. The consent of the governed is not required.

Here's the latest unilateral action taken by the EPA:

The Obama administration proposed on Tuesday the first rules to cut carbon dioxide emissions from new U.S. power plants, a move hotly contested by Republicans and industry in an election year.

The Environmental Protection Agency's proposal would effectively stop the building of most new coal-fired plants in an industry that is moving rapidly to more natural gas. But the rules will not regulate existing power plants, the source of one third of U.S. emissions, and will not apply to any plants that start construction over the next 12 months.

"We're putting in place a standard that relies on the use of clean, American made technology to tackle a challenge that we can't leave to our kids and grandkids," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told reporters in a teleconference.

As Obama said, he has an "all of the above" energy strategy…except for the energy sources he doesn't like, of course. Those aren't included in the word "all".

Needless to say, miners aren't very happy:

The National Mining Association said the rules can only hurt industry. "This proposal is the latest convoy in EPA's regulatory train wreck that is rolling across America, crushing jobs and arresting our economic recovery at every stop".

Well sure, you whiny miners are going to complain about losing your crummy little jobs, but you are expendable when we're talking about Obama's glorious future. As stated previously, that future is in natural gas.

It's a good thing we don't have any problems with natural gas drilling….except for an EPA report that says it causes groundwater pollution. Natural gas drilling has also been tied to a dozen earthquakes in Ohio.

Start the countdown on how long it will take for the EPA to issue rules against natural gas drilling. Environmental groups are all for such rules.

There are a couple ways to stop the domineering EPA regulatory Czars. The first way is by filing lawsuits against the EPA. One successful suit against the EPA was won in the last week:

The United States Supreme Court unanimously has ruled that "compliance orders" of the Environmental Protection Agency can be reviewed by the courts.

Some are praising the Wednesday opinion as limiting the power of a rogue government entity.

The court rejected the Obama administration's contention that judicial review is prohibited. It also reversed, once again, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling affirming that the EPA's order cannot be challenged.

The Ninth Circuit is the most reversed Appeals court in the country and is considered the most liberal.

Sackett v. EPA involved limiting the government's powers to enforce the Clean Water Act. The 9-0 ruling said citizens sue the EPA to challenge an order to stop an activity that it says violates the CWA. People have a right, within the scope of the Administrative Procedure Act to sue immediately at the time they choose and not have to wait until the EPA sues them.

Take note of the part I highlighted above. Both the Obama administration and the most liberal circuit court in the nation were AGAINST judicial review of EPA rulings. This means Obama and other liberals not only want the EPA placed beyond the reach of the Legislative branch, they want it beyond the reach of the Judicial branch as well. And people wonder why I use the word "tyrannical" to describe this administration. It's because this administration IS tyrannical. It's subversion of our long-established system of constitutional government is often shocking, and this leads me to the second way to stop the unilateral, non-elected, and non-representative EPA – Don't Re-elect Obama.

{ 39 comments }

Scalia Slaps Down Federal Government

by Da King on March 28, 2012

in health care,supreme court

In the following video, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia knocks down the federal government's alleged Commerce Clause case precedents for the ObamaCare individual mandate (and makes the point of my previous post). Scalia also gives the government solicitor a lesson on enumerated powers and the Tenth Amendment. This is music to my ears.

Thanks, Nino.

Passing thought: In the above video, the government solicitor said something about how the federal government needs to regulate interstate commerce in the healthcare market. Because health insurance is not even allowed to be sold across state lines in this country (it's all licensed at the state level), how can ObamaCare be regulating insurance between the states ? Remember what the Commerce Clause says, "[Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes". How can the federal government regulate interstate health insurance commerce, when it doesn't even exist ?

{ 37 comments }

Precedent For ObamaCare Mandate ?

by Da King on March 27, 2012

in health care,supreme court,US Constitution

The Supreme Court is hearing a case about the ObamaCare mandate this week. Under the mandate, all citizens of the United States will be forced to either purchase government-approved health insurance from private providers or pay a fine. The case is an appeal of an Eleventh Circuit Court decision which held the ObamaCare individual mandate to be unconstitutional under both the Commerce Clause and the Taxing And Spending Clause of the Constitution. That ruling stated the following:

…the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power. This conclusion is limited in scope. The power that Congress has wielded via the Commerce Clause for the life of this country remains undiminished. Congress may regulate commercial actors. It may forbid certain commercial activity. It may enact hundreds of new laws and federally-funded programs, as it has elected to do in this massive 975- page Act. But what Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die.

In other words, forcing people to engage in commerce is well beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause, which heretofore has concerned itself only with regulating the production and transport of goods. This is the correct interpretation, in my opinion. I can't even fathom another opinion. If the government can force the citizenry to purchase private products under the Commerce Clause, what limit is there to the government's power over us ? They could force us to do virtually anything. If the government said we had to buy a Chevy Volt every four years, buy gym memberships to exercise five times per week, and eat broccoli and carrots every day, they could do so. The power of the government would be unchecked, which is precisely what our Founders designed the divided and limited powers of government to prevent. This is an issue of fundamental individual liberty versus government tyranny. This should be the easiest, most crystal clear case ever for the Supremes to decided ever. A slam dunk.

But when you add politics into the mix, nothing is ever crystal clear. Things become quite muddy, and the intentions of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution can be manipulated for partisan political ends. That's why it's assumed the entire liberal wing of the Supreme Court will vote to uphold the ObamaCare mandate, thus "expanding" the meaning of the Commerce Clause forever. It will be up to the conservative Justices to hold the constitutional line, and that is NOT assumed. We are not sure how they will vote.

The pro-ObamaCare, pro-tyranny folk claim to have case precedents to support their side. The problem with their claim is, none of the Commerce Clause precedents they cite have anything to do with compelling the citizens to purchase privately-made products. Here are some of the case precedents that allegedly pertain to ObamaCare (pro and con):

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): A landmark in Supreme Court jurisprudence on the power of Congress. The court ruled unanimously that Congress could establish a national bank.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942): The court unanimously ruled in favor of congressional limits on the amount of wheat a farmer could grow, even if the extra wheat was intended for the farmer’s personal use. The limit was part of a 1938 law aimed at stabilizing wheat prices.

N.Y. v. U.S. (1992): In a 6-3 decision, the court used the commerce clause to uphold two of three provisions of federal law that used incentives to get states to dispose of radioactive waste. New York had objected because residents of remote rural areas protested such disposal.

U.S. v. Lopez (1995): In a San Antonio case involving a youth who was arrested for bringing a gun to school, the Supreme Court for the first time in decades ruled Congress exceeded its commerce clause limits in approving the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The vote was 5-4.

U.S. v. Morrison (2000): The court again ruled 5-4 that the commerce clause limits the legislative power of Congress, in this case the 1994 Violence Against Women Act. The same majority as in Lopez (with swing votes from Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor) said there is no connection to interstate commerce for the statute, which provided a federal court civil remedy for victims of gender-motivated violence.

Gonzales v. Raich (2005): Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia joined the court’s 6-3 majority in ruling that the U.S. government via the commerce clause could enforce federal drug laws in California and other states permitting medical marijuana.

U.S. v. Comstock (2010): The court held the Constitution gives Congress power to enact the Adam Walsh Protection and Safety Act, which authorized civil commitment of convicted sex offenders on the basis of “sexual dangerousness.” Chief Justice John Roberts joined the 7-2 majority.

Here are a few other cases the pro-ObamaCare folk curiously cite as support for the ObamaCare mandate:

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1, in 1937. The case originated in Aliquippa, Pennsylvania, where Jones & Laughlin was penalizing and discriminating against workers attempting to unionize. NLRB ordered Jones & Laughlin to end its coercive union-busting tactics.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 in United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, forcing a Georgia lumber company to improve worker conditions.

In the 1950s, the Court upheld a wide range of legislation regulating everything from forms of fraud — Federal Trade Commission v. Mandel Bros., Inc., 359 U.S. 385 (1959) and Securities & Exchange Commission v. Ralston Purina Company, 346 U.S. 119 (1953) — to discrimination against small businesses — Moore v. Mead's Fine Bread Company, 348 U.S. 115 (1954) — to unfair business practices within professional football — Radovich v. National Football League, 352 U.S. 445 (1957).

In 1964, in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S., 379 U.S. 241, the Court unanimously upheld the desegregation of public accommodations by the Civil Rights Act under the Commerce Clause.

Anyone see anything in there remotely close to granting the federal government the power to force people to purchase private products under the Commerce Clause ??? No, me neither. The two that come closest are probably Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich, but neither comes within shouting distance. In Wickard, a farmer was prevented from growing wheat beyond the amount determined by the government, even if it was for his own personal use. That Orwellian ruling was tyrannical enough in it's own right, but it doesn't have much to do with forcing people to purchase health care. It just limited production (remember, the Commerce Clause is about regulating the production and transport of goods). Still, liberals use it as justification, even though it isn't. In Gonzales, federal drug law took precedence over state law on medical marijuana. Again, that case was about the production and transport of goods, not forcing people to engage in commerce. Gonzales only reinforced the notion that the federal government could use the Commerce Clause to restrict commerce if that commerce was against federal law.

I could find absolutely NO precedence under the Commerce Clause for the constitutionality of the ObamaCare mandate. If the mandate IS ruled to be constitutional, it will be entirely arbitrary, and entirely political. The Supreme Court can only "expand" the Commerce Clause if it WANTS to. There is no constitutional justification for it, and if the Court does do it, that is the very definition of judicial activism.

Unfortunately, judicial activism often rules the day. That's why two of the fours courts that have ruled on the ObamaCare mandate…upheld it. One of them was the D.C. Court Of Appeals. Listen to the crazy train logic from that Court:

"It certainly is an encroachment on individual liberty, but it is no more so than a command that restaurants or hotels are obliged to serve all customers regardless of race … or that a farmer cannot grow enough wheat to support his own family. "The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local — or seemingly passive — their individual origins."

Got it. Screw liberty. Screw the Constitution. The ObamaCare mandate is the same as preventing discrimination against blacks (WRONG !), and screw that farmer who wanted to feed his fricking family too. Also notice the straw man argument, "The right to be free from federal regulations is not absolute". Yeah, no kidding. Nobody has EVER argued differently, but there are supposed to be limits to what government can do. That's why we have a Constitution in the first place. What the D.C. Court is basically saying is this – WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT, AND WE WILL DO WHATEVER WE DARN WELL PLEASE !!!

Recent polls show a wide majority of Americans think the ObamaCare mandate is unconstitutional and should be overturned, but I guess that doesn't matter either.

Tyranny never changes. Never.

{ 32 comments }

Elke's Warning

by Da King on March 26, 2012

in communism,fascism

The collective over the individual, nationalizing health care, nationalizing banks, confiscating guns, the abolition of God, the government in charge of industry, liberty in chains, all to help the common man, of course…

Sound familiar ? Is there anyone in America advocating these things ?

Never forget, and never let it happen here.

{ 65 comments }

Politics Enters Trayvon Martin Fray

by Da King on March 25, 2012

in justice,race relations,White House administration

President Obama made the following comments about the killing of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, who was shot by a Hispanic neighborhood watch captain in a gated community:

If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," Obama said, underscoring how the issue affected him on a personal, and not just a political or legal, level. "I think [Trayvon's parents] are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and we are going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened…Obviously, this is a tragedy…I can only imagine what these parents are going through, and when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids, and I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together — federal, state and local — to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened…I think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happen," said Obama. "And that means we examine the laws and the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident."

I agree with most of what Obama said there, and pretty much everybody I've heard wants a thorough investigation of the Trayvon Martin case, as do I, but what difference does it make whether Trayvon looks like Obama's son or not, and why do we all need to do some "soul searching", especially when all the facts in the case have not been brought to light ? Why is the President of the United States further racializing this case, when racial tensions are already running so high over it ? He should be doing precisely the opposite in an attempt to calm things down. Regardless of how all this shakes out, this is ONE case, not a blanket indictment of the entire country.

Some GOPers jumped on Obama's remarks:

On Friday, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said Obama and his comments were "disgraceful."
"It's not a question of who that young man looked like. Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period..Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot, that would be OK because it didn't look like him? That's just nonsense dividing this country up.Trying to turn it into a racial issue is fundamentally wrong".

Mitt Romney and other conservatives have also called for a thorough investigation.

As best as I can piece together, here's what happened in the Trayvon Martin case, including the possible racial angles…

On February 26th, Trayvon, a black teenager, was returning home from a convenience store, walking through a Sanford, Florida gated community. He was wearing a hoodie. Neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, 28, (Reuters described him as a "white Hispanic", and the gated community is 50% white, 20% Hispanic, and 20% black) started following Trayvon, and called the police dispatcher to say Trayvon looked "suspicious". The police told Zimmerman not to confront Trayvon, a directive Zimmerman apparently ignored. According to Trayvon's girlfriend, with whom he was speaking on his cell phone, Trayvon turned around and said to Zimmerman, "Why are you following me ?" An altercation ensued (who the aggressor was, I can't tell you). Several witnesses report they heard a scuffle, a cry for help, and then a gunshot. Trayvon Martin was dead. Zimmerman had a bloody nose and a cut on the back of his head. Zimmerman said he acted in self-defense, and the police did not charge him.

There are a number of problems with the way the police handled this case. Trayvon Martin was unarmed. He was carrying a pack of Skittles and a bottle of iced tea. So, what was he doing that was "suspicious" ? Was he guilty only of 'walking in a hoodie while black' ? Further, for Zimmerman to act in self-defense, he had to fear his life was being threatened. It is also alleged that Zimmerman used a racial slur in reference to Martin on the police dispatch tapes, though I've read this is not clear. The police didn't interview Trayvon Martin's girlfriend, even though she requested an interview and could shine light on part of what took place. The police didn't even run a background check on Zimmerman. I understand why people are upset. This case upsets me too. I'm glad there is going to be a complete investigation of the matter. There are lots of questions that need to be answered here.

What we don't need is to add a parade of race baiters into the mix, and we sure don't need the President to be one of them.

Here's why:

The new Black Panther Party offered a bounty of $10,000 Saturday for the “capture” of a Florida neighborhood watch captain who killed unarmed teen Trayvon Martin.

“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” leader Mikhail Muhammad said after announcing the reward for George Zimmerman at a protest in Sanford, Fla.

Muhammad called on 5,000 black men to mobilize and capture the neighborhood watch volunteer.

“If the government won’t do the job, we’ll do it,” Muhammad said, leading chants that included “freedom or death” and “justice for Trayvon.”

The group hopes to collect $1 million off the outrage by next week

This kind of vigilante justice must be condemned.

Others have used the Trayvon Martin case for political ends as well, to attack Florida's Stand Your Ground law, which grants immunity to anyone who uses deadly force if they can reasonably claim they were defending themselves. The problem with blaming Stand Your Ground in the Trayvon Martin case is, Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. He wasn't standing his ground at all. He went after Trayvon Martin. The Stand Your Ground law should not apply.

{ 71 comments }

Free Speech Files

by Da King on March 23, 2012

in freedom,US Constitution

Correction: Before I get into today's subject matter, I want to issue a correction regarding a source I used in a post about voting fraud. In a January 23rd post titled, 'Monday Madness', I cited the South Carolina Attorney General's letter to the U.S. Justice Dept., which stated that 953 dead people voted in a South Carolina election. I used that source to say liberals were lying about occurrences of voting fraud. Liberals have been contending recently that there are very few instances of voting fraud (contrary to what liberals contended in the aftermath of the 2000 and 2004 elections). After a partial investigation of the matter, it turns out the S.C. Attorney General's voting fraud fears may be unfounded:

The State Election Commission said Thursday that 95 percent of the 207 allegedly dead people who voted in the 2010 general election either were alive and cast ballots legally or did not vote.
But, citing limited manpower and money, the commission said its review of zombie voters did not include 696 other allegedly dead voters whom some state officials say cast ballots in elections before 2010.
However, Attorney General Alan Wilson Thursday said his office still is investigating the allegations along with SLED.

The investigation is not complete, but there may be few to no instances of dead people voting in the 2010 South Carolina election. It could all boil down to clerical errors and such. For sure, nowhere near to 953 dead people voted fraudulently. I regret jumping the gun in my post. I should have waited for confirmation of the alleged voter fraud before I wrote what I wrote. Mea culpa.
===
Today's subject is free speech. What is permissible and what isn't ? Some stories in today's news raise the question. First, from the Los Angeles City Council:

The City Council has approved a resolution calling on local TV and radio stations to limit any “racist” and “sexist” comments on their broadcasts.
The City Council voted 13-2 to pass the resolution with a motion urging “the management of radio and television stations in Los Angeles to do everything in their power to ensure that their on-air hosts do not use and promote racist and sexist slurs over public airwaves in the City of Los Angeles”. Councilmen Joe Buscaino and Mitchell Englander cast the two opposing votes to the resolution, which was introduced on Mar. 7 by Councilwoman Jan Perry in response to a the controversy over recent comments by KFI 640 talk radio hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou. The duo had recently drawn criticism for referring to the late pop singer Whitney Houston as a “crack ho” in February in the wake of her untimely death.

It has been confirmed that cocaine was a significant factor in Whitney Houston's death, but where does the "ho" part come from ? I have no idea, but is this type of slanderous speech allowable ? We hear it all the time. From Rush Limbaugh to Bill Maher, it occurs across the spectrum. And if we're going to crack down on "racist" and "sexist" comments, shouldn't we also crack down on "age-ist", "fat-ist", "blond-ist", "ethnic-ist", "tall-ist", "short-ist", "ugly-ist", "non-pc-ist", and all kinds of other "ist" language ? Shouldn't we just crack down on all speech that anyone might find offensive ? Where is that line drawn ? I suspect we wouldn't have much free speech left if we did that. Politicians would have to go on the campaign trail and talk about the weather if they didn't want to risk offending anyone. No, strike that. Even the weather has become a political hot topic (no pun intended) these days.
===
Next up, a Marine gets in hot water for criticizing President Obama on Facebook:

The Marine Corps has initiated disciplinary action against a Marine sergeant for comments he posted on his "Armed Forces Tea Party" Facebook page criticizing President Barack Obama, a spokesman said on Thursday.

Sergeant Gary Stein, 26, a weather forecaster assigned to Camp Pendleton near San Diego, cast the Marines' reaction to his comments as an infringement on his freedom of speech and defended his right to express personal political opinions when he is off-duty and out of uniform. "There is not a document in this world that trumps the United States Constitution," the San Diego Union-Tribune quoted him as saying.

Defense Department rules allow military personnel to express political opinions so long as they are not doing so as representatives of the armed services.

Stein told the newspaper the Marines accused him of making statements about the president "that are prejudicial to good order and discipline," in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and were taking steps to discharge him from the corps. Major Michael Armistead, a spokesman for the Marine Corps Recruiting Depot in San Diego, said the corps had begun administrative action against Stein after a preliminary inquiry into allegations that he "posted political statements about the president of the United States on his Facebook web page titled 'Armed Forces Tea Party.'"

The comment in question has since been removed, and Stein said he could not remember it precisely. But he paraphrased himself as stating: "I say screw Obama. I will not follow orders given by him to me." He said he later clarified online that he meant he would not follow "unlawful orders" from the president. Stein enlisted in the Marines nine years ago at age 18, and deployed once to Iraq, according to the newspaper. The American Civil Liberties Union in San Diego went to bat for Stein in 2010, according to its website, sending a letter to his commanding officer at Camp Pendleton saying that the ACLU "strongly supports the First Amendment rights of service members to discuss and critique the government's policies and conduct."

This example is more troubling to me, because it infringes of freedom of political speech. Are the soldiers fighting and dying for our country not allowed freedom of speech, one of our most cherished principles ? That sure doesn't sound right. If our soldiers aren't allowed basic constitutional rights…then exactly what are they fighting for ?
===
In the next hateful free speech example, Rush Limbaugh's name comes up again. If you detest Limbaugh for calling Sandra Fluke a "slut", then go over to YouTube or Facebook, where you can listen to the "Kill Rush Limbaugh" song, by the band Detente. Ugh. That's way over the line. If you say something like that about an elected official, you will be arrested. Suddenly, calling someone a "crack ho" or a "slut" seems almost tame by comparison. Now we have people saying you should kill Limbaugh for engaging in free speech. And here I thought it was bad that Media Matters and other liberal groups are trying to silence Limbaugh's voice (without resorting to murder):

Rush Limbaugh’s opponents are starting a radio campaign against him Thursday, seizing upon the radio star’s attack of a Georgetown law student as a “slut” to make a long-term effort aimed at weakening his business.

The liberal Media Matters for America is using a past campaign against Glenn Beck as a template. In Limbaugh, however, they’re going after bigger game. He’s already fighting back and the group’s stance has provoked concerns that an effort to silence someone for objectionable talk is in itself objectionable.

Media Matters is spending at least $100,000 for two advertisements that will run in eight cities.

In one of the anti-Limbaugh ads, listeners are urged to call the local station that carries Limbaugh to say “we don’t talk to women like that” in our city.

Ad time was purchased in Boston; Chicago; Detroit; Seattle; Milwaukee; St. Louis; Macon, Ga.; and Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The cities were selected to support active local campaigns against Limbaugh or because of perceptions Limbaugh may be vulnerable in that market, said Angelo Carusone of Media Matters.

Beyond the First Amendment concerns, industry experts like Talkers magazine publisher Michael Harrision are concerned that Media Matters’ effort will simpy take some advertisers out of radio altogether when they have different options.

Liberals aren't the only speech chillers:

The means of protest puts Media Matters and the conservative Media Research Center in the unlikely position of agreeing with each other. Brent Bozell, founder of the conservative media watchdog, said his group also informs advertisers of things it considers objectionable.

“We all have free speech,” Bozell said.

That’s where the agreement stops. Bozell this week called on MSNBC chief Phil Griffin to resign, citing objectionable things said in the past by Ed Schultz and Al Sharpton, both MSNBC show hosts. It’s in part retaliation for attacks on Limbaugh, he said. The Fluke story was covered extensively by MSNBC.

“There’s a great sense of selective outrage that is going on here,” he said.

Brent Bozell wants to fire people who want to get people fired for engaging in free speech ? That's his payback, to engage in the same behavior as the people he dislikes ? What a convoluted web these would-be free speech Czars weave. Hey, maybe ohio.com should boot my blog because that South Carolina Attorney General's voting fraud allegation turned out to be exaggerated !!! That'll teach me !!! How dare I…quote people !!! Such nerve I have !!! Why, the next thing you know, I might be offering opinions other people disagree with !!! We sure can't have that in America, land of the free.

I know I haven't used the best examples possible here to defend free speech. I mean, who wants to defend a person who would call a woman a "dumb twat", as Maher said of Sarah Palin ? It's vulgar and base, and we do need some standards on the air, but if you look beyond the smoke screens these speech chillers put up, one thing becomes evident – this is mostly about POLITICS, and nothing else. All you have to do is look at the selective outrage that is generated to discover that much. Media Matters could care less what Bill Maher says, but when it's Limbaugh…OUTRAGE !!! It's all about politics, and if we chill political speech in this country, where will that leave us ? Let's ask the father of our country…

If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter – George Washington.

It's easy to guarantee freedom of speech for those with whom we agree. Anyone can do that much. It's tolerating the free speech of those with whom we vehemently disagree that measures our true resolve on the matter. That's why it's troubling when Media Matters tries to shut down Rush Limbugh, or when the L.A. City Council tries to regulate free speech, or when the military tries to suppress free speech, or when Brent Bozell tries to get people fired for free speech. I mean, I hear all kinds of speech I find offensive, from Limbaugh's "slut" remarks, to Bill Maher's "c*nt" remarks, to misogynistic rap lyrics, to Obama's dishonesty with the American people, and on and on. I could name all kinds of speech I don't care for, but what I don't do is TRY TO SHUT THEM UP, because I don't want to live in some fascist country where nobody can voice their opinion for fear they will lose their livelihoods, or worse. Besides, ignorant speech carries it's own penalty. As the journalist Anna Quindlen once pointed out, "Ignorant free speech often works against the speaker. That is one of several reasons why it must be given rein instead of suppressed".

{ 21 comments }

Occupy Movement…Literally

by Da King on March 22, 2012

in liberalism,Occupiers

Now that nice weather has returned, the Occupy Wall Street crazies are ba-ack…and crazier than ever.

Yesterday:

The NYPD released surveillance video Wednesday night detailing some stinky business they say is linked to Occupy Wall Street protesters.

Police said that on evening of March 14, a number of Occupy demonstrators dragged large quantities of human urine and feces in containers to an open-air plaza before pouring the waste down a flight of stairs.

The incident occurred at the corner of Nassau and Cedar streets in Lower Manhattan.

Authorities said that that same night, about 20 minutes later, one of the suspects entered a Chase ATM vestibule on Water Street and poured human waste inside.

A real class act, those Occupiers.

Then there's this crazy shirtless Occupier ranting on top of the George Washington statue in Union Square.

We must up to about 5,000-6,000 or more arrests of Occupiers by now, so…please tell me again how the peaceful, law-abiding Tea Party was the dangerous and crazy movement, liberals. I love fiction.

No word on when President Obama is going to condemn the violent, law-breaking Occupiers…LOL.

Tagged as: Occupiers

{ 25 comments }

Etch-A-Sketching Romney's Record

by Da King on March 22, 2012

in elections,GOP,Uncategorized

On television last night, I saw both Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Newt Gingrich (R-GA) waving Etch-A-Sketches around onstage, saying Mitt Romney (R-MA) would erase his primary campaign and move left for the general election. This was meant to imply Romney is a flip-flopping politician with no conservative principles, and came after Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom went on CNN and compared the general election to an Etch A Sketch, saying Romney can "shake it up" and "start all over again" in the fall.

Such is politics, I suppose, but this prompts me to share a few thoughts about the GOP primary race.

1. With friends like Fehrnstrom, Romney doesn't need enemies. He played right into the hands of Romney's opponents. Here's what Santorum spokesman Alice Stewart said of the Etch-A-Sketch remark:

Stewart said Fehrnstrom's remark "confirms what a lot of conservatives have been afraid of."

"He used to be pro-abortion, he used to be pro-gay marriage, he used to be pro-Wall Street bailouts, climate change," Stewart said of Romney. "You know now he's talking a different language, but the campaign acknowledges that if need be, if he won the primary, he would go right back to the middle in order to win the general."

Add the RomneyCare vs. ObamaCare issue into the mix, and you know what challenges Romney will face on the flip-flopping front during the general election.

2. How in the world did Rick Santorum manage to get into second place ? At the beginning of this process, when I looked at all the potential GOP nominees, Santorum barely merited a look. He was an afterthought. Santorum lost his 2006 Senate re-election bid to Democrat Bob Casey by 18 points, and even though it's only March, there hasn't been one poll that gives Santorum a chance of beating Obama. Santorum may tap into that evangelical social conservative vote, but that alone won't win the presidency. If the GOP's wish is to lose badly in November, by all means, pick Santorum.

3. I hated the Etch-A-Sketch. All I could ever draw with it were squares and rectangles. My diagonal lines always looked they were drawn by a drunk, weaving all over the place.

4. Gingrich has lost it in his desperation to win. He's been trying to paint Romney and Obama as the same person. I'll get back to that nonsense in a minute.

5. The Republican party should make Romney it's candidate, stop all the damaging infighting, and get on with the REAL goal of defeating President Obama, where every poll shows Romney has the best chance by far.

Now let's get to what is really important – what Romney will do if he's elected President. Luckily for us, we have a Romney track record at which to look (the rest of this post rebuts Gingrich's silly contention that Romney and Obama are the same). Here's a bit of his background:

Mitt and Ann married on March 21, 1969. Ann was attending college at Brigham Young University and Mitt transferred there, eventually graduating first in his class in 1971 with a degree in English and a 3.97 GPA. Their first son, Taggart, was born on their first anniversary.

The young couple moved to Boston so Mitt could attend Harvard Law School. He was also accepted into a joint M.B.A. program at Harvard Business School. Their second son, Matthew, was born and in 1975 he graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School and in the top 5 percent of his class at HBS.

He first worked at Boston Consulting Group, then as a management consultant at Bain & Co., where he became a vice president in 1978. By then he and Ann had three more sons–Joshua, Benjamin, and Craig. Mitt was asked to head Bain Capital, a venture capital company, in 1984. It was there that he became a millionaire.

He spent $3 million of his own money in an unsuccessful race to unseat Edward Kennedy from the U.S. Senate in 1994.

He became president and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee in February 1999 and turned around a scandal-plagued Winter Olympics. Romney donated $1 million to the games and refused to take a salary unless the committee finished in the black. When the Olympics ended successfully in February 2002, people viewed him in a new light as a rising politician.

Romney was elected the 70th governor of Massachusetts in 2002 and served until 2007. He decided not to run for re-election and instead pursued an unsuccessful bid for the presidency.

This all paints a picture of an extremely competent and successful man. I'd sure call that a plus for a potential President.

Let's look specifically at Romney's past executive performance as Governor of Massachusetts as a predictor of how he will perform as President, and let's not forget that a Republican winning the governorship in bluer-than-blue Massachusetts is no small feat in and of itself. Conservative columnist Ann Coulter provided some data on Romney in her latest column:

[Romney] cut state spending by $600 million, including reducing his own staff budget by $1.2 million, and hacked the largest government agency, Health and Human Services, down from 13 divisions to four. He did this largely by persuading the Legislature to give him emergency powers his first year in office to cut government programs without their consent.

Although Romney was not able to get any income tax cuts past the Democratic Legislature, he won other tax cuts totaling nearly $400 million, including a one-time capital gains tax rebate and a two-day sales tax holiday for all purchases under $2,500.

He also vetoed more bills than any other governor in Massachusetts history, before or since. He vetoed bills concerning access to birth control, more spending on state zoos, and the creation of an Asian-American commission — all of which were reversed by the Legislature.

As Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, said, "What else could he do?"

Romney left his successor, Deval Patrick, Democrat and friend of Obama, with a "rainy day fund" of $2.1 billion, more than tripled from $640 million when Romney took office. (Of course, as soon as Romney was gone, Patrick raided the rainy day fund, increased government spending and raised taxes.)

Romney inherited a huge, Democrat-created budget deficit. The existing Massachusetts deficit was already more than half a billion dollars when Romney took office halfway through a fiscal year, with a projected deficit of $3 billion for the following fiscal year.

And yet, Romney balanced Massachusetts' budget each year he was in office and left the state with a surplus, without raising taxes.

To the contrary, every single budget Romney submitted included income tax cuts — all of which were rejected by the 85-percent Democratic Legislature. (The last time Massachusetts legislators approved an income tax cut was when it was attached to a bill raising their own salaries by 55 percent.)

Romney balanced the budget by slashing spending, eliminating ridiculous corporate tax loopholes and increasing user fees for government services consumed by only some citizens, such as court filings, taking the bar exam, boating, hunting and golf licenses.

That all sounds pretty good to me, and pretty conservative. I'm ready to have Mitt Romney compare his budget balancing record to Barack Obama's trillion dollar deficits in the general election all day, every day, and twice on sundays. Republicans will just have to live with Romney's incredible sin of mandating healthcare for 97% of the Massachusetts electorate without raising taxes, I guess. Then again, this might not be as much of an issue if the Supreme Court does it's job and strikes down the unconstitutional ObamaCare health insurance mandate this year.

Here's more on Romney's record as Governor of Massachusetts (and this link corroborates the information I quoted from Coulter's column, for all you liberals out there who are having epileptic fits because I cited Ann Coulter):

In 2002 [before Romney became Governor], Massachusetts' economy was rapidly deteriorating. It was ranked 50th, the second worst in the nation in its increase in unemployment. [1] Job losses were so great that although a dozen states were more populous, and California had over 5 times as many people [2], Massachusetts lost more jobs than anywhere else in the country.

The unemployment rate in Massachusetts had doubled from January 2001 to January 2003, the year Romney took office, and was continuing to increase at a fast rate. He implemented pro-growth policies and programs. By summer the increase in unemployment had stopped and by fall unemployment was dropping. [13] While Massachusetts was 50th, or nearly the worst in the nation in the increase in unemployment rates the year that just ended when he took office, he got it down to 38th place by the end of his first year in office. [14] The unemployment rate continued to rapidly drop for nearly two years, hit a plateau for about a year and a half, then started dropping again at the end of his term of office (see chart below). The year he left office (2007), the trend in Massachusetts' unemployment rate was 12th in the nation [15], a big improvement from the 50th place it was in the year he won office.

Again, let's compare Romney's performance to Obama's performance all day long, every day of the week in the general election. Obama hasn't even gotten unemployment back to where it was when he took office, and that's AFTER he has run up debt faster than any President in history and skyrocketed spending.

But wait, there's more !

“Massachusetts saw its S&P rating rise to double-A from double-A-minus under Romney.”

During Governor Romney's tenure from 2003-7, Massachusetts dropped from 13th to 17th in national tax burden rankings [the Democrats in the state legislature blocked the tax cuts Romney wanted, or this figure would be FAR better]

“The state farthest along the path to the New Economy is Massachusetts. Topping the list in 1999 and 2002, Massachusetts' lead over other states in 2007 has increased [under Romney]—with a concentration of software, hardware, and biotech firms supported by universities such as MIT, Harvard, and others. The state had the fourth-highest increase in per capita income, according to the study.”

To sum it up, Romney's record is one of success. And if Romney changed his position on abortion and gay marriage…so what ? Lots of people do that. What counts is having a president who will get this country back on it's economic feet again. Obama has had his chance, and he has failed. Now it's time to give someone else a chance, someone who has a history of economic success. That man's name is Mitt Romney…and we have the added bonus that HE CAN ACTUALLY WIN !!!

{ 5 comments }

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →