Romney on the Righting of America

Mitt Romney assesses Obama's options following the nation's rejection of Obama's first two years in office and what he could/should do to right this nation back to productivity and respect:

President Obama could have focused on solving the financial crisis. He did
not. He could have endeavored to conquer the looming threats to our future.
Instead, he added to them. Now that voters have rejected his first two years in
office, the president should not waste this political crisis: He should seize
his "Nixon to China" opportunity.

Government is a greater threat to America in 2010 than China was in
1972. Government is smothering the pioneering, entrepreneurial spirit that
propelled our economy past those of older, larger nations. Ever higher taxes on
small and big business, layers of red tape, onerous labor regulations, and
punitive bureaucrats and lawsuits are suffocating U.S. economic vitality. So
far, the president and his fellow travelers in Congress have made things worse:
If Obama is serious about changing the way things are done in Washington, he
must slay the job-killing beast Washington has become.

He must also choke off government's voracious appetite. Under current
law, the federal government's share of the economy will grow from its
50-year average of 20.3 percent to 26.5 percent by the end of this decade;
federal, state and local governments will then constitute more than 40 percent
of the economy. At what point do we effectively become a socialist economy, with
its associated low growth, low incomes and permanently high unemployment?

And at what point will lenders to our government insist on charging
punishingly high interest rates, or stop buying U.S. debt altogether?
Congressional Budget Office data indicate that government spending through the
next decade will require $12.4 trillion in additional debt, bringing our total
public indebtedness to $22.2 trillion by 2020 - about the size of our gross
domestic product. America's debt then will look a good deal like Greece's debt
does today.

Obama's first instinct is to blame all this on his predecessor's
tax policies. But the $22.2 trillion figure already assumes that Obama will
raise taxes on annual incomes higher than $250,000, repealing the so-called Bush
tax cuts for the rich. So the $12.4 trillion in new debt is entirely due to
government spending and the president's own tax policies. Spending, Mr.
President, is what threatens America's economy, not tax cuts.

To tame runaway government spending, the president should of course
embrace the usual measures: freeze government employment; freeze growth in
discretionary spending; veto every spending bill chocked with earmarks; work to
regain an effective line-item veto; extinguish ineffective, wasteful programs.
But these are just the start.

If the president is to become serious about spending, borrowing and
deficits, he must subject government to the two budgeting rules employed by
every well-run business and home.

Rule One: Start with the total, don't end

up with it. Decide from the outset the amount that the government will spend for
the year. Don't add up all the program requirements, departmental requests and
political wish lists to calculate the total - that's surrendering, not
budgeting. The nation's 50-year average annual tax burden has been 18 percent of
GDP. That's the right figure for total spending; it may take several years to
rein in spending to that level, but it should be the target.

Rule Two: Go where the money is.

With entitlement spending about half of all federal spending, the president has no choice but to address Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He should propose less costly progressive indexing for future Social Security beneficiaries - using the consumer price index inflator rather than the wage index for higher-income retirees. Medicaid should be granted in block to the states, giving them flexibility to meet the
needs of poor residents in their own ways. Medicare will require reform of
health care, making it more like a consumer market and less like a regulated
utility. Medicare recipients should also be given better options for private
coverage. Regardless of the reforms chosen, the entitlements budget should be
subject to Rule One - set a total first and conform the programs to that level.
Advocates of this course include the Brookings Institution on the left and the
Heritage Foundation on the right.

Finally, don't let the Bush tax cuts expire. Keeping them will yield
revenue at 18.4 percent of GDP in 2020 - higher than the historic tax average.
Lower taxes will propel growth, add jobs and produce a larger GDP that can
accommodate our spending priorities. And don't push defense below 4 percent of
GDP; with today's global threats and allies' diminishing military capabilities,
freedom will increasingly depend on American strength.

The president can turn his party's losses Tuesday into a win for the
country. It all depends on the course he sets.

The writer, a Republican, was governor of Massachusetts from 2003
to 2007.

Source: THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Freeze: One of Many Obama Gimmicks

Karl Rove knows .... (must-see video)

When are the rest of us gonna learn?

On January 5, Rove wrote this is in his Wall Street Journal column:

After President Obama devoted much of 2009 to health care and global
warming—two issues far down Americans' list of concerns—the White House says he
will pivot to jobs and deficit reduction in his State of the Union speech in a
few weeks. The White House is considering dramatic gestures, perhaps announcing a spending freeze or even a 2% or 3% reduction in nondefense spending.

But Americans shouldn't be misled by the election year ploy: Mr. Obama rigged the game by giving himself plenty of room to look tough on spending. He did that by increasing discretionary domestic spending for the last half of fiscal year 2009 by 8% and then increasing it another 12% for fiscal year 2010.

So discretionary domestic spending now stands at $536 billion, up nearly 24% from
President George W. Bush's last full year budget in fiscal 2008 of $433.6
billion. That's a huge spending surge, even for a profligate liberal like Mr.
Obama. The $102 billion spending increase doesn't even count the $787 billion
stimulus package, of which $534 billion remains unspent.

Mr. Obama can placate congressional Democrats by arguing that all that extra spending he has already crammed through can cover their spending desires at least through the 2010 congressional elections.

Mr. Obama is thinking of tapping another pocket of cash. Now that the banks are repaying—with interest and dividends—the $240 billion the Bush administration lent them, the Obama administration is considering recycling those dollars into new spending on "green" technology and more stimulus, despite provisions Congress wrote into the law creating the Troubled Asset Relief Program that requires that reduction.

Meanwhile, defense spending is being flattened: Between 2009 and
2010, military outlays will rise 3.6% while nondefense discretionary spending
climbs 12%.

All this leaves Mr. Obama in the enviable position of appearing tough on spending while growing the federal government's share of GDP from its historic post-World War II average of roughly 20% to the target Mr. Obama laid out in his budget blueprint last February of 24%.

There are also those pesky entitlements. This mandatory spending has grown to 66% of the budget, up from 29% in 1965. Serious budgeters understand spending cannot be brought under control unless these mandatory outlays are part of the mix.

One idea on Capitol Hill is to create a commission that would propose a package of entitlement reforms that Congress would have to vote on as a package, up or down, take it or leave it—much like the base closing commission.

The Obama White House likes this idea in part because the proposal calls for including some congressional Republicans but would reserve a majority of the seats on the commission for Democrats. That would put Democrats in charge while also making the GOP share in the political pain that would come with whatever the commission proposes. Conservatives worry, with justification, that a commission's purpose would be to provide Republican cover for tax increases and a permanent increase in the size of the federal government.

What's more, the White House may only be interested in an election-year gesture. White House staff are apparently considering creating a presidential commission that would look like it's working on deficit reduction but that would be established by executive order. Of course, without congressional authorization, there's no way to force Congress to vote on a commission's recommendations.

Whatever Mr. Obama says in his State of the Union, Republicans need to be
tougher on spending and deficits. Later this month, Senate Republicans are
planning to force their colleagues to go on the record on how to spend returned
TARP funds by demanding that Democrats vote on the issue. Some House Republicans are also considering calling for a return to the level of discretionary domestic spending that existed when Mr. Obama entered office last January.
Few things focus the attention of politicians as much as approaching elections -- big reasons Republicans have a nine-point lead on the Rasmussen Poll's generic ballot.

Independents are particularly sensitive about deficits, spending and taxes, whose growth they see aversely affecting jobs and the economy. They give Mr. Obama only a 21% approval on handling the deficit. Only 10% of independents want to spend unused bank bailout money on other government programs.

At the beginning of his term, Americans believed Mr. Obama would
follow through on his campaign promises about "cutting wasteful spending" and
going "through the federal budget, line-by-line, ending programs that we don't
need" and putting "an end to the run-away spending the record deficits."
After a year of living in his fiscal fantasy world, Americans realize they
have a record deficit-setting, budget-busting spender on their hands. Voters are
now reading the fine print on all that Mr. Obama proposes and as they do, his
credibility, already badly damaged, suffers.

Amen.

And pass the teabags.

.

Internet Treaty Revealed -- More Obama Lies

Secret copyright treaty leaked --- Obama tried to hide it due to "national security" .... http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html

Pelosi healthcare bill includes 6 billion dollar "slush" fund .... http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/03/pelosi-bill-slips-in-6-billion-slush-fund/

Obama worship slips --- except where children can be indoctrinated --- http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/04/mmm-mmm-mmm/


Obama didn't have time to watch the return results ---- planning another campaign swing??? Another golf trip??? http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/our_president_of_leisure_cant.html and http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/obama_didnt_follow_election_re.html


Civil War??? You mean the one between dems??? http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024865.php


.

AIG bonuses: Who knew what when? Another Obama lie

If you've just watched Obama speak as he leaves for California -- you heard him lie about blaming the AIG bonus scenario on the previous administration ..... It's nothing more than another con game being played by Obama's White House.

Obama's Stimulus Bill specifically approved bonuses contracted pre-Feb. 11 ---

Leftist Radio Host: Obama WANTS the outrage!

MM refers to it as DC kabuki theater of AIG outrage ---- feigned surprise at something both the president, Geithner and the inner circle of enablers knew about.

Read the time-line in MM's article.

Meanwhile, Prez ZerO is off to sunny California on an0ther campaign swing --- watch for him to follow up the Leno gig with a visit with Ellen for (as MM suggests) another "BoBo boogies while DC burns" jive step.

You might also enjoy this revelation on how the US taxpayer is bailing out the world.


Meanwhile, check out our new video section in the sidebar AND the Issues and Topics section to the right --------->

You may also find these articles enlightening:

Last night's White House party list (while DC burns, of course --- let's get drunk and watch from the Rose Garden ..... grrrrrrrrrrrrr)

America's financial meltdown: The Son of Soros Seals our Fate

Teleprompter Blunder (ZerO thanks himself ....)
Obama to strong-arm budgets through Congress

Gov to kill farmers' markets?

WH admits cap and trade costs underestimated (tripled??)

Iran in South America
ACORN and the Census
Medical Civil Liberties Threatened
Bail Out Funds follow Obama's Campaign Contributions

And check out those Tea Party rallies ----- you are needed!!!!

.

Hillary's PUMA's and Jewish Coalitions Turn On Obama

After Joe Biden's idiotic prediction:

“Mark my words,” the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second
of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. “It will not be six months before the
world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re
about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of
America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I
said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to
test the mettle of this guy.”

His "guy" will need all the support he can muster -- nationally and internationally. And it will take more than Obama-thuggery to force American's to his side.

For example --

Obama may claim to be supportive of Israel, but his affiliation with Hamas and Palestinians are mutually stronger ....



Hillary's supporters (especially the PUMA group) are supporting the McCain-Palin ticket in principle and in partisan defiance to Obama's tactics in stealing the Democrat nomination from Hillary Clinton.



I don't know what type of "crisis" Biden anticipates for his ticket-mate, but his first challenge will be to gain the support of those he has literally "thrown under the bus" enroute to buying the U. S. presidency.

Not the least of which will be the PUMA's who supported Hillary Clinton. "Hell hath no fury like that of woman scorned ...."

A Second Look at Obama's Friends ....

When a man of so little verifiable background and experience presents
himself as a candidate for what is unarguably the most powerful political
position in the entire world, every scrap of detail regarding his life, beliefs,
associations, and accomplishments is of extreme importance. They are all we
have, especially in light of Barack Obama’s refusal to release and make public
the following:

A certified, authenticated birth certificate
College transcripts from
Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard
Senior thesis written at Columbia
Writings from Harvard
Full medical records

In light of these gaping holes in his resume — holes that could be easily
filled in by Barack Obama, but have not been — it becomes the duty of every
voter to examine the peripheral areas of Obama’s life with utmost care, giving
special attention to patterns of association that point to matters of judgment,
character, and true intent.

The reality is, not everyone (especially mainstream media) has been paying attention to Obama' list of friends. Read the full article and review the characters Obama wants us to ignore ....

Obama: Against Born-Alive Infants Legislation

Rather than promoting a discussion of Obama's abortion stance, it is my contention that the more universal "flaw" in his position is his failure to support (late-term aborted) Born-Alive Infants Protection legislation. To speak against this legislation, which he did, is to literally endorse infanticide -- the willful murder of new-born infants.

In the selection below, authorities address Obama's response in the last Presidential Debate:

Obama's latest excuse for opposing the Illinois Born-Alive Infants
Protection Act is that the law was ''unnecessary'' because babies surviving
abortions were already protected. It won't fly.

In last night's presidential debate, Sen. John McCain finally found an
opportunity to confront Sen. Barack Obama on his vote against protecting
children who were born alive after an attempted abortion.

Obama's response followed the pattern of his approach to this subject
throughout the campaign: deny the facts and confuse the issue.

He said: ''There was a bill that was put forward before the Illinois Senate
that said you have to provide lifesaving treatment and that would have helped to
undermine Roe v. Wade. The fact is that there was already a law on the books in
Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment, which is why not only
myself but pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it.''

But the facts of the born-alive debate tell a different story.

A few years ago, after it became clear that some infants who were born
alive in the course of an attempted induced abortion at Christ Hospital in
Chicago and elsewhere were being left to die without even comfort care,
Republicans and Democrats around the country united in an effort to make the
practice illegal and declare that any child outside the womb, even if she was an
abortion survivor whose prospects for long-term survival might be in doubt, was
entitled to basic medical care.

Even the most ardent advocates of the pro-choice position agreed that a
child born alive, even after an attempted abortion, deserves humane
treatment. The tragic stories of infants being left to die moved
legislators to act at both the state and federal levels.

In Washington, D.C., consensus can be a rare commodity, and never more so
than on the issue of abortion. But the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002
was just such a rarity. The bill passed both houses of Congress without a single
dissenting vote-it was 98-0 in the Senate-and numerous states then proceeded to
enact similar measures.

In Illinois, however, a series of efforts to pass ''Born-Alive''
legislation from 2001 to 2003 met with stiff resistance from legislators
concerned the measure would constrain the right to abortion in the state.

Prominent among these opponents, and the only one to actually speak in
opposition to the bill when it was debated in 2002, was state Senator Barack
Obama.

Obama's case against the bill did not revolve around existing state law, as
he seemed to suggest last night. The law Obama referred to in the
debate was the Illinois abortion statute enacted in 1975.

But at the time of the debate about the Born Alive Act, the Illinois
Attorney General had publicly stated that he could not prosecute incidents such
as those reported by nurses at Christ Hospital in Chicago and elsewhere
(including a baby left to die in a soiled linen closet) because the 1975 law was
inadequate.

It only protected ''viable'' infants-and left the determination of
viability up to the ''medical judgment'' of the abortionist who had just failed
to kill the baby in the womb. This provision of the law weakened the hand of
prosecutors to the vanishing point. That is why the Born Alive Act was
necessary-and everybody knew it. Moreover, the Born Alive Act would have had the
effect of at least ensuring comfort care to babies whose prospects for long-term
survival were dim and who might therefore have been regarded as ''nonviable.''
As Obama and the other legislators knew, without the Born Alive Act, these
babies could continue to be treated as hospital refuse.

That's how the dying baby that Nurse Jill Stanek found in the soiled linen
closet got there.

Obama, who in 2003 became the chairman of the state senate's Health and
Human Services Committee, argued not that existing law did everything the newly
proposed measure would do, but that the born-alive bill would put too much of a
burden on the practice of abortion.

''As I understand it,'' Obama said during the floor debate, ''this puts the
burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing
this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or
child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb
and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say,
movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and
dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor
and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.''

This, he argued, was too much to ask of a doctor performing abortions, and
it could also, as he put it, ''burden the original decision of the woman and the
physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.''

To address the concern of Obama and others who believed in a sweeping right
to abortion, Illinois legislators in 2003 amended the bill in Obama's committee,
inserting language clarifying that the bill would in no way affect the legal
status of a human being before birth.

It applied only to a child born alive. Identical ''neutrality''
language in the federal version of the bill had persuaded every single
pro-choice legislator in Congress to support the measure.

But Obama opposed the bill anyway, and his fellow Democrats followed their
chairman's lead, killing the legislation in committee.

When Obama was challenged to explain himself, earlier in this campaign, he
at first insisted that he opposed the Born-Alive Act in Illinois because it
didn't have a neutrality clause. When critics contended that this claim was
false, Obama accused them of ''lying.'' But then the critics produced
indisputable documentary evidence that in fact Obama had voted against a bill
that did include the neutrality clause. Obama had plainly misrepresented his
record. Now he really had some explaining to do.

But Obama still did not tell the truth last night. As his original 2002
statements make clear, he sought to defeat the Born-Alive Act because he
recognized that it bears at least implicitly on the larger question of abortion
in America. He seemed to realize that the logical implication of protecting the
child born alive after an attempted abortion is that abortion involves taking
the life of a child in the womb, and that acknowledging that, even at the
extreme margins of the practice of abortion, could put the legitimacy of
abortion itself in question. Therefore, Obama chose to defend the widest
possible scope for legal abortion by building a fence around it, even if that
meant permitting a child who survives an abortion to be left to die without even
being afforded basic comfort care.

Some of Senator Obama's supporters are now making one last, rather
desperate-sounding attempt to defend his votes against protecting infants born
alive after unsuccessful abortions.

Their argument goes this way: Permitting children who survive attempted
abortions to be abandoned is so heinous, so barbaric, that for someone to accuse
Senator Obama, a decent man who is himself the father of two daughters, of
supporting what amounts to legalized infanticide is too outrageous to merit an
answer.

There is a problem, though.

In light of the documentary evidence that is now before the public, it is
clear that the accusation against Senator Obama, however shocking, has the very
considerable merit of being true.

~~~~~~~~

The Catholic Vote video "Life, Faith, Family" is in the sidebar.

Allowing late-term abortion "survivors" who breath and cry to be left in a laundry room to die alone without comfort or sustenance? No, Senator. That is not the type of change we need ..... Indeed, Senator Obama --- the issues of humanity and decency are well above your pay grade.

The Obama-Rezko Connection

From News Alert:

Tony Rezko is talking. Giving up information on Illinois Governor Rod
Blagojevich isn't going to cut enough years off Rezko's sentence.

A knowledgeable, unnamed, source with close ties to prominent criminal
defense attorneys in Chicago says Tony Rezko is talking about everything from Congressman Luis Gutierrez's town house to the sensitive subject of Rezko's campaign contributions to Senator Barack Obama.

Was Obama's real estate deal with Rezko a bribe?

Stay tuned because Operation Board Games is far from over.

According to our source,Rezko seems to be talking about the Health
Facilities Planning Board where Barack Obama was Rezko's "inside guy in the
Illinois senate as far as setting up the Health Facilities Planning Board "(to
use an Evelyn Pringle phrase).

A criminal indictment of Barack Obama is actually possible.

During the Rezko trial,the Obama campaign had someone (physically in court)
to monitor the court proceedings every day.

Here's the interesting court document where Rezko claims the Feds are interested in dirt on Barack Obama.

By all means --- visit each of the links above.


More links to follow ....

Obama's Foreign Contributors

Subtitled: "How to buy the U. S. Presidency"

The answer is simple. Don't identify your contributors.

Fine. But don't expect us to believe that --- during a national financial crisis --- several million cash-strapped supporters somehow had the audacity to contribute half a billion dollars?

And over 37,000 of those contributors donated with foreign currencies converted to U.S. dollars?

How about the $500,000 contributed by "unidentifieds" who are unemployed?

Remember the previous post of Gadhafi's endorsement? Here's another "insight" into more illegal fund-raising for Obama:



Would you be surprised that Obama cancelled his meetings with U.S./Israeli groups?

Updates to be posted here ....

Gadhafi Endorses Obama: "a Muslim"

From the video:

Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim of Kenyan origins who studied in Islamic schools and whose campaign may have been financed by people in the Islamic and African worlds, Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi said during a recent televised national rally.

"There are elections in America now. Along came a black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim, who had studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia. His name is Obama," said Gadhafi in little-noticed remarks he made at a rally marking the anniversary of the 1986 U.S. air raid on his country.