Posts Tagged ‘Mitt Romney’

Senator Ted Cruz: “The Way We Win Is With Bold Colors And Not Pale Pastels.”

January 12, 2015

tedcruz2016 will be here before we know it. So far, the potential Republican Presidential Candidates are less than exciting, to say the least.

A certain Conservative Firebrand from deep in the heart of Texas has some strong opinions about the future direction of the Republican Party. has the story…

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz took a swipe at Mitt Romney on Monday, saying that Republicans’ path to the presidency doesn’t cut through “the mushy middle.”

Cruz was asked about Romney, the GOP’s 2012 nominee, by reporters following the senator’s keynote address at a Heritage Foundation summit.

“There are some who believe that a path to Republican victory is to run to the mushy middle, is to blur distinctions,” Cruz said. “I think recent history has shown us, that’s not a path to success. It doesn’t work. It’s a failed electoral strategy. I very much agree with President Ronald Reagan that the way we win is by painting with bold colors and not pale pastels and I think that’s gonna be a debate Republicans are gonna have over the next two years.”

“It is certainly a debate that I intend to participate in vigorously,” the first-term Texas senator added.

Cruz also called on the Republican majority in Congress not to back down from the agenda on which its members ran and laid out a 10-point plan for the country that included renewed efforts at repealing Obamacare and abolishing the IRS in a keynote address at the Heritage Foundation on Monday afternoon.

“We need to do everything humanly possible to repeal Obamacare,” including a Senate vote on full repeal followed by piecemeal votes on repealing the least popular components of the Affordable Care Act, Cruz said on the first day of a two-day summit branded “Opportunity for All: Favoritism to None.” (Heritage also laid out an agenda in a book of the same name.)

Cruz is one of about two dozen conservative lawmakers scheduled to address the summit, including Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a potential rival for the GOP presidential nomination.

The senator also hit other conservative hot-button issues — calling for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, passage of balanced budget and term limits amendments to the Constitution, auditing the federal reserve and repealing the Common Core educational standards.

Cruz ended his remarks with a criticism of the Obama administration’s foreign policy, characterizing it as too soft on Iran’s nuclear program and on Islamic terrorism. “They target the West,” he said, “and yet you cannot win a war against radical Islamic terrorism with an administration that is unwilling to utter the words radical Islamic terrorism. These were not a bunch of ticked-off Presbyterians.”

I’m not shy about stating that I like Senator Ted Cruz. He is a straight shooter, who is not afraid to tell it like it is.

The Republican Establishment, or Vichy Republicans, as I have dubbed them, are pushing potential Presidential Candidates for 2016 whose platforms are so similar to those of their potential Democrat Opponents are to be virtually indistinguishable.

Oblivious of their past failures (i.e., Dole, McCain, and Romney), while pursuing their milksop Political Philosophy, the Vichy Republicans, or GOPe, as an internet friend has named them, cling to their mission to hold onto their cushy Seats of Power, recently given to them last November by us, their Conservative Base, by playing an old, tired political game.

Make no mistake, they will defend the Washingtonian Status Quo to their last breath, and savage anyone who threatens it, with the help of their allies from “across the aisle”, the Democrats and their minions in the Main Stream media. Look at how they have attacked Former Alaskan Governor and Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate, Sarah Palin., and, in recent years, the Republican Senator, Ted Cruz of Texas.

They have called them both everything but Children of God.

However, they are not the first Conservative Republican Politicians to be attacked in this manner, in this generation.  That honor belonged to the greatest United States President in our lifetime. the great man that Senator Cruz referenced in his interview.

On March 1, 1975, the Great Communicator and Future President of the United States, Ronald Wilson Reagan, spoke the following words at the 2nd Annual CPAC Convention. He may as well have been speaking yesterday.

I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party” — when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

And let it provide indexing — adjusting the brackets to the cost of living — so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people. Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”

We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

Timeless Advice.

Here’s some from ol’ KJ, if I may be so bold: you members of the Republican Establishment need to climb down off of your bar stools at the Congressional Country Club, and travel outside the Echo Chamber of the Beltway, where actual, average Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck, trying to provide for their families, while attempting to make a better life for their children and grandchildren.

Come on down to Mississippi and sit a spell and have some barbecue, sweet tea, and ‘nana puddin’ with us average Americans, instead of hanging out with Obama at the White House and partaking of Arugula and Wagyu Beef.

You want to know why folks like Sarah Palin, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz are so popular with average, real-life Americans (as opposed to statistics in an anonymous poll)?

Check out the pictures from October 2013, of the Veterans March on Washington. They were there, GOPe. Why weren’t you?

It’s one thing to talk the talk. It’s another thing to walk the walk.

Until He Comes,





Ann Coulter Wants Romney in 2016…To Heck With Us “Rubes” in the Heartland.

April 4, 2014

anncoulterJust when you thought that Ann Coulter had regained her senses..she shows her true colors in a television interview.

Here is a transcript, courtesy of

HOST: Who are you for, for president right now, Ann?

ANN COULTER: Well, don’t tell him but I’m planning on giving Mitt Romney a little more time to rest — flying out, kidnapping him and depriving him of sleep, food and water until he agrees to run again.

HOST: You’re kidding?


HOST: You really want him to run again?

COULTER: Yeah, I think he was a fantastic candidate. As I’ve told you before, he would have won by a larger landslide than Ronald Reagan did in 1980 without Teddy Kennedy’s immigration bill. And it’s basically impossible to beat an incumbent, but he is head and shoulders better than the other candidates we had. And I don’t want to name them, but I mean you go through the list — and for one thing, as you and I discussed, and this is the most important point, that all of your listeners have to tell all of their friends knock it off with the Congressmen or inspirational figures. It’s got to be a Governor or a Senator, preferably a Governor. And, you know, there is a limited world — a list of who those people are, and they all have problems. None of them are articulate and reasonable, and as good on immigration as Mitt Romney!

HOST: What about Ted Cruz?

COULTER: Well, he’s a lot worse on immigration.

HOST: Is he that bad? I didn’t think he was that bad on immigration.

COULTER: Well, most Republicans are, that’s why you need to call your Congressman. I’m not singling out Ted Cruz, he has the same position a lot of these idiots have. ‘Oh yes, let them come here and we have a special permit, we just won’t give them citizenship. But we want to increase guest workers.’

That’s going to last 10 seconds and destroy the Republican party with Hispanics. What are we going to have, a servant class we’re going to bring in to work for us? Um, no, within six months they will all be citizens voting for the Democrats, and Republicans will never win another election.

No, but Romney was the best on immigration of any candidate in my lifetime with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan, but he was hoodwinked in passing that amnesty —

HOST: Right, Simpson-Mazzoli, or whatever it was called in 1986.

COULTER: And with the promise of border enforcement. I mean, Ed Meese himself has said if Reagan could go back, he never would have signed that now. He was double-crossed.

HOST: Yeah, but people are saying, ‘No, Ann, no. No more RINOs.’

COULTER: Well, that’s just the mob taking over — you may not have the tribe wanting to run Romney again, but the idea the he’s a RINO, as opposed to what, Rick Perry, who gave illegal aliens in-state tuition. The same thing with Chris Christie. And, as I say, Ted Cruz is a disaster on illegal immigration.

That is YOUR opinion, Miz Ann.

Once again, through the love of your Vichy Republican Heart, Williard Mitt Romney, you have shown yourself to be nothing but an Establishment Republican, who sold books, while masquerading as a Conservative.

After it has all been said and done, you are just another Beltway Darling, enamored with your position as a “political pundit”, drunk with fame and arrogance, looking down on us Average Conservative Americans, here in the Heartland.

I can hear your response to my charges, even as I write this Blog:

Why can’t you be smart, like we are, in the Beltway? Don’t you know that Reagan Conservatism is passe? We need to pick a candidate for president who can reach across the aisle, a Moderate, err, I mean a “real” Republican who knows his place. Umm, I mean, one who will sit in the Oval Office with grace and dignity.

Now, shuddup you stupid rednecks and let us geniuses up here in the Beltway tell you who to vote for.

Unfortunately, Miz Ann, it doesn’t work that way.

You see, we average Americans, here in Dixie, and folks in the rest of the Heartland, are fed up with you Vichy Republicans treating us like the hired help. We stood by and watched you nominate the likes of Bob Dole and John McCain, the squishiest of squishes, then held our noses and dutifully voted for them.

Then, we watched you and your buddies, the Democrats, and their lackeys, the Main Stream Media, trash a good Christian American like Sarah Palin, to the point where she and her family said, “Enough of this mess”, which led to her dropping out of the Primary race.

This, in 2012, your Vichy Republican Role Models decided that it was Mitt Romney’s “turn”,  leading him to the same embarrassing fate that every other “moderate” Republican has met in a Presidential Election.

Afterwards, you joined in with them, in blaming absent Conservative Voters, for Romney’s Failure.

Miz Ann, you need to go on Wheel of Fortune, buy a vowel and get a clue. The South and rest of the Heartland will vote for whomever we want to, so go get your skinny self a sammich and stuff it.

Besides, why should we trust the judgment of someone who used to date Bill Maher, anyway?

I rest my case.

Until He Comes,


The Effort to Redefine Conservatism Continues…

March 7, 2014

reaganOver the last couple of days, there seems to be a renewed, concerted effort among the Northeastern Republicans’ Club, to question the usefulness of “Social (i.e. Reagan) Conservatives” to their efforts to win elections, both state and national.

Actually, it is something that I noticed starting to gain steam as the 2012 Presidential Primaries started kicking into gear: a serious effort to redefine Conservatism to mean “wanting a government which does not blow all my money and leaves me alone, so that I can do what I want do, regardless of how it effects others around me”.

For example, yesterday, at the annual Political Convention known as CPAC, a historically-Conservative meeting, the legendary RINO New Jersey Governor Chris Christie spoke, and received a standing ovation.

Later, well-known squish Senator Mitch McConnell spoke.

Meanwhile, on my favorite Conservative website,, founded by Reagan Conservative Michelle Malkin, and now owned by Moderatate-leaning Salem Communications, the question was asked in one of the posts, “Is Social Conservatism Hurting the Tea Party?”

To quote the late, great Slim Pickens,

What in the Wide, Wide World of Sports is a’goin’ on here?

Who are these individuals, who are so desperately trying to remove the Conservative Base from The Grand Old Party?

On the internet, these believers express themselves in various terms, which all translate to the same thing: Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal.

Their common goal is a desire to redefine the definition of Conservatism in order to make themselves feel better about their non-Conservative, and oft times, downright hedonistic,  social ideology.

You’ll find these same individuals on Internet Chat Boards, complaining about how narrow-minded and statist Reagan Conservatives, like myself, are.

And, God help you if you tell them that there is such a thing as morality and ethics. They will tell you that you”re nothing but a busybody who wants to meddle in people’s private lives  and take away their “freedom”.

They insist that the only way for the Republicans to win anything at all in 2014 and 2016, is to forget the antiquated ideology of Reagan (Social) Conservatism.

You know, that whole God and Country Bit that I always talk about.

Evidently,to these folks, good, old-fashioned American Faith, Values, and Ethics are just that…old-fashioned.

That’s funny. Down here in Mississippi, that is how we live our lives. We love God. We love our country. We love our family and friends…and, we look out for one another.

Mississippi is not the only state like that. All the states in the Heartland of America, share the same Classic American Values and Beliefs

That’s why the President, entering his 6th year in office, is still out campaigning. He can’t overcome them.

Look at all of the National Issues which he and all of his fellow travelers have been so feverishly trying to ram down our throats: homosexual marriage, amnesty for illegal immigrants, the legalization of marijuana, and gun confiscation. They have all been stalled by the conviction of average Americans to stand up for their faith and values.

No matter how much Progressive Propaganda is unleashed upon the American Citizenry, Conservatives in America’s Heartland are standing firm, solid in their beliefs, still “bitterly clinging to their Bibles and guns”.

No matter how many rigged polls  and slanted news stories are thrown at us, we will not be moved.

Concerning those who believe that being a Conservative only hinges on your Fiscal Ideology…

J. Matt Barber wrote in the Washington Times that

Ronald Reagan often spoke of a “three-legged stool” that undergirds true conservatism. The legs are represented by a strong defense, strong free-market economic policies and strong social values. For the stool to remain upright, it must be supported by all three legs. If you snap off even one leg, the stool collapses under its own weight.

A Republican, for instance, who is conservative on social and national defense issues but liberal on fiscal issues is not a Reagan conservative. He is a quasi-conservative socialist.

A Republican who is conservative on fiscal and social issues, but liberal on national defense issues is not a Reagan conservative. He is a quasi-conservative dove.

By the same token, a Republican who is conservative on fiscal and national defense issues but liberal on social issues – such as abortion, so-called gay rights or the Second Amendment – is not a Reagan conservative. He is a socio-liberal libertarian.

Put another way: A Republican who is one part William F. Buckley Jr., one part Oliver North and one part Rachel Maddow is no true conservative. He is – well, I’m not exactly sure what he is, but it ain’t pretty.

At the Forth Annual Conservative Political Action Committee Convention in 1977, Ronald Reagan said,

The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind. When we conservatives say that we know something about political affairs, and that we know can be stated as principles, we are saying that the principles we hold dear are those that have been found, through experience, to be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities and for nations — found through the often bitter testing of pain, or sacrifice and sorrow.

One thing that must be made clear in post-Watergate is this: The American new conservative majority we represent is not based on abstract theorizing of the kind that turns off the American people, but on common sense, intelligence, reason, hard work, faith in God, and the guts to say: “Yes, there are things we do strongly believe in, that we are willing to live for, and yes, if necessary, to die for.” That is not “ideological purity.” It is simply what built this country and kept it great.

So, if your stated political ideology is one of those listed above, by not differing from them in your Social Ideology, and fighting against Reagan Conservatives, in your own Party, like me, whom you have so derisively named “True Conservatives”, aren’t you being unwitting dupes for the Progressives?

Even the Progressives claim to be “Fiscally Responsible”.

And another thing…if being a “Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal Moderate” was so popular and your viewpoint so widespread, why is homosexual marriage having to be put in place by activist judges? Why was “gay marriage” not passed in the majority of states by popular vote?

Could it be that, despite all of the propaganda coming out of the Northeast, from both sides of the political aisle, the majority of Americans in “Flyover Country” remain actual Reagan Conservatives?

Mmmmm…could be.

I’ll ask Presidents Dole, Gore, Kerry, McCain, and Romney for their opinions.

Oh, wait….

Until He Comes,


Vichy Republicans: “Leave Hillary Alone!”

February 18, 2014

Hillary Ramirez CartoonOn Monday, the Republican Establishment, or, as I have dubbed them, the Vichy Republicans, tried to get out in front of the upcoming battle for the Republican Presidential Candidate Nomination and the Presidential Election of 2016 itself, by hitting the talk show circuit to declare that the top Democrat Contender for the Presidential Candidate Nomination, Former First Lady, New York Senator, and Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s past is not to be brought up by any Republicans…except to challenge her record as Secretary of State.

Heck , they even trotted out “Mr. Nice Guy” and 2012 Presidential Election Loser Mitt Romney, to drive their point home about being “civil” toward Hillary.

What is the NE Moderate Republicans’ Club thinking? Do they want to lose to the Democrats…again? There are no Marquis of Kingsbury Rules in politics. Just as in any competition, you do not win by being a wuss. You suck it up and COMPETE. You give it your best shot. You give as good as you get.

These Vichy Republicans seem to live in their own little, isolated Beltway Bubble.

Quite frankly, if they do not want to fight for the most powerful Governmental Office in the World, they do not deserve to win the presidency

The past of the Clintons is heavily documented, and easily brought to the public eye. For example…

The following information is quoted from an article posted on on 9/15/13, written by Clarice Feldman

…Hillary came to public attention with her graduation speech at Wellesley College.

She was chosen for this honor not because of grades or character or service to that community but because her influential roommate threatened a strike if she were not allowed to speak. Once the school caved to this demand, Hillary — who just two years earlier supported Senator Edward Brooke, the first black American to be elected to the Senate — hurled a vicious attack on him.. The charges were hurtful to him and without substance.

From Wellesley she went to Yale law school after which she moved to Washington, D.C. to take a job with the House Judiciary Committee investigating Watergate. She was fired from her job and from that point on distinguished herself as a public master of mendacity.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of the 27-year-old, fired her, and has explained why:

…”Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

At about the same time, Hillary failed the District of Columbia bar exam, hardly one of the more difficult bar exams in the country. 

…In 1978 she turned a $1,000 cattle commodity trading account into $6,300 overnight and within 10 months into a $100,000 profit. While she first lied and claimed she learned how to make this incredible investment profit in the riskiest of endeavors by educating herself on commodity futures, in fact she was the beneficiary of preferred treatment by an Arkansan when her husband was Arkansas attorney general and slated to become that state’s governor, when in other words Bill was a person in a position to provide favors in return.

…She regularly covered up her husband’s misogynistic attacks on women, apparently accepted without protest his nuts and sluts defenses, and no one did a better job than she when pretty in pastel green and with a nice girlish headband she stood by her man while incongruously insisting she was no Tammy Wynette.

…Hillary’s corruption and preposterous lies continued into the White House. Special prosecutors investigating an apparently corrupt loan and land development deal had conducted subpoena searches for Hillary’s law billing records which she claimed had gone missing.

…they were suddenly turned over to the prosecutors by a White House aide, Carolyn Huber. Mrs. Huber said she had found them on a table in a room in the White House living quarters last August and put them in a box, then had realized this month that they were the records that had been subpoenaed.

Hillary became the first First Lady to have to testify to a federal grand jury. In the end she wasn’t indicted in the Whitewater scandal, in part quite obviously because of the unlikelihood that an overwhelmingly Democratic jury in the District of Columbia would ever convict her. What difference does it make? Someone who so obviously lied to escape criminal jeopardy would drive confidence in the fairness and honesty even lower than Obama has and a society in which the leaders are held in such disregard is a vastly weaker one in every respect.

…From the beginning of the Whitewater controversy, Hillary Clinton has maintained a public posture seemingly at odds with her actions. She was reluctant to release records during the 1992 campaign. She fought David Gergen’s recommendation to turn over all the records in 1993. She led White House opposition to the appointment of a special counsel in early 1994.

…In 1993 she made serious but untrue allegations about pharmaceutical companies gouging providers on children’s’ vaccines.

…Based on Hillary Clinton’s proclamation of a nonexistent crisis, Congress had been stampeded into passing unnecessary legislation. And even though the worst features of the administration plan had been dropped, the country was still stuck with a program that was more costly, cumbersome and wasteful than the one it replaced. What’s more, the alarming statistics Hillary had cited on the rise in prices of prescription drugs were another myth. It turned out that the Labor Department statisticians had gotten the numbers wrong.

…Only short sellers profited, among them a private hedge fund called ValuePartners I, run by Smith Capital Management of Little Rock, Arkansas. Hillary Clinton held an $87,000 stake in Value Partners I, which also owned a block of stock in United Healthcare, an HMO that stood to benefit under the Clinton reform plan. Lois Quam, a United Healthcare vice president, was a member of the task force.

Unlike the Carters, Bushes and Reagans, the Clintons failed to put their assets into a blind trust when they moved into the White House. Hillary resisted the notion that her financial affairs were anybody’s business but her own, and she reasoned that since she was not a government employee and the money was in her name, she didn’t have to resort to a trust.

…At the same time she barreled through that loser her husband drafted her to head a Task Force to draft new health legislation, Her clumsy handling of the Task Force certainly added to the opposition to this wonk wet dream and by 1994 it was dead. 

…As Secretary of State, Hillary proved even a bigger disaster to the country.

She, who had failed to provide the begged-for security to our ambassador and officials in Benghazi and who seems to have done nothing but participate in the bald-faced lies about the murderers and their motive was, in fact, the author of the Red Line dare that has plunged Obama into a Syrian disaster.

The red line was not a gaffe it was the considered policy of the United States. This, if anything, makes the whole incident more egregious as the nation was consciously committed to acting militarily (see Clinton’s statement about “contingencies” and “response”) in case of chemical weapons use in Syria and yet it is obvious no planning was ever accomplished in anticipation of such an event. Yet another blunder by the administration comes home to roost.

…Syria is just the last gasp of the Clinton Arab Spring idiocy and [Obama’s] promise of a gentle tap with just a few hardly noticeable Tomahawks was just a continuation of the soft power idiocy promulgated by Clinton and her shrews. The same crew are wholly responsible for the Benghazi fiasco where Clinton’s denial of funding for adequate security led to [Gaddafi’s] arms stockpiles drifting into unkind and uncaring hands.

If the Republican Establishment shafts those of us in the Conservative Base, once again, and rams through a “Moderate” Nominee, will the Conservative Base expend our energy to try to drag their sorry hindquarters over the Finish Line, as Sarah Palin attempted to drag John McCain’s? Or, will Conservatives, handcuffed by the admonition to “play nice” and marginalized by the Vichy Republicans, just say, “Fuhgeddaboutit!” and leave the GOP high and dry…to lose the presidency by an even greater margin than ever before?

It’s time for the Vichy Republicans to wake up and smell what they’re shoveling….before they’re covered in it.

Until He Comes,


Obamacare: Inception, Perception, and Rejection

November 9, 2013

obamacaremoeAs I posted yesterday, President Barack Hussein Obama came on NBC Nightly News on Thursday night, to “apologize” to the America People, concerning his Signature Legislation, Obamacare.

Through a convoluted parsing of words, the petulant President ducked, dodged,. dipped, dived, and dodged ( to borrow the words of Rip Torn as Patches O’Houlihan in the movie “Dodgeball: An Underdog’s Story”) his way through the interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, until, when the interview was over, Americans realized that he was not actually apologizing for the disastrous Roll-out of Obamacare…he was actually apologizing that we caught him at his duplicity.

The implementation of a State-Run Healthcare System has been a major goal of the Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, Communists, Socialists, Marxists, Alinsky-ites, for decades now.

Call them what you will…I think they stink on ice. But, I digress…

To the Wayback Machine, Sherman! (That’s a reference to the “Rocky & Bullwinkle Show”, for you 20 year olds)

After Bill “Bubba” Clinton and Hillary “Cankles” Clinton ascended to the presidency in 1993, they immediately started to work on putting together a Plan for National Healthcare Reform, whether the American People actually thought we needed it, or not.

Sound Familiar?

First, Bill appointed Hil as the chair of the task force devising the plan. you see, Bubba had campaigned heavily on health care in the 1992 U.S. presidential election. After the task force was created in January 1993, The way it conducted business came under scrutiny by Congress and the public, alike.   Like Obama’s promise concerning Obamacare, the Clinton Task Force’s goal was to come up with a comprehensive plan to provide universal health care for all Americans, which was to be a cornerstone of the administration’s first-term agenda.

In September of 1993, Clinton went before Congress and delivered a major healthcare speech, introduced Congress and the Nation to his and his little flower’s (Hillary, not Jennifer) Grand Scheme.

The core element of the proposed plan was an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees through competitive but closely regulated health maintenance organizations.

Again…sound familiar, boys and girls?

Just like the Obamacare debacle, anybody with any sense whatsoever, including, but not limited to,  Conservatives, Libertarians, and the Healthcare and the Health Insurance Industries, rose up against the Clintons’ plan.

The Health Insurance Industry even came out with a highly effective television ad, a “Harry and Louise” ad”, designed to rally public support against the plan. Democrats,in an attempt to protect their phony-boloney jobs, started distancing themselves from the Clintons, and instead of uniting behind the First Couple’s National Healthcare Proposal, started presenting a number of competing plans of their own.

Bill and Hil’s Grand Scheme ultimately withered away amid the barrage of fire from the American Public and even further cemented the public’s perception of Ms. Rodham Clinton as the power-hungry shrew of a wife, behind her easy-going, people person husband, “good ol’ Bubba”.

The Clintons’ Grand Scheme was declared dead by Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell in September of 1994.

Our next stop during our journey through the inception of Obamacare, involves Former 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate Willard “Mitt” Romney.

Back in 2006, Romney signed a massive health-insurance overhaul into law as Governor of Massachusetts. “Romneycare” was packed with subsidies, exchanges, and mandates to extend coverage to the uninsured. Four years later, it became the model for the national nightmare known as Obamacare.


So, what is the truth concerning Romneycare?  Well, according to this article, posted on wsj (Wall Street Journal).com on January 21st, 2010:


Using the Census Bureau’s current population survey, University of Kentucky economist Aaron Yelowitz and Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute studied RomneyCare between 2005 and 2008—that is, two years on either side of its passage. The share of uninsured residents did fall to 5.4% in 2008 from 9.8% in 2005 (though the authors argue this reduction is overstated).

But Messrs. Yelowitz and Cannon show that most of the new coverage was concentrated among people earning under 300% of the federal poverty level, or about $66,000 for a family of four. Those happen to be the same people who qualify for subsidies in the heavily regulated insurance “connector,” the prototype for the “exchanges” that Democrats were contemplating before Mr. [Senator-Elect Scott] Brown so rudely interrupted.

Coverage for adults in this group increased by 14.2 percentage points—which merely proves that “universal” coverage isn’t much of a problem if health care is cheap for consumers. But another way of thinking about it is that the subsidies amount to a taxpayer-funded insurance discount. The same increase in coverage might be achievable if health care were less expensive. But rather than deregulate and reform the private market to lower costs, Mr. Romney and Democrats defaulted to the same public transfer payments that define ObamaCare.

What is the definition of stupidity, boys and girls?  

In August of 2009, during his Weekly Address, Obama said,

…while reform is obviously essential for the 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance, it will also provide more stability and security to the hundreds of millions who do. Right now, we have a system that works well for the insurance industry, but that doesn’t always work well for you. What we need, and what we will have when we pass health insurance reform, are consumer protections to make sure that those who have insurance are treated fairly and that insurance companies are held accountable.

So, aided by a Democrat-controlled House and Senate, Obamacare was foisted upon the unwitting and unwilling American Public, on dark and foreboding night.

Which brings us to “This Present Darkness” (taken from the title of a Christian novel by Frank E. Peretti, which illumines the war American Christians fight everyday with “princes and principalities”. Sadly appropriate.)

According to, 52 million Americans will lose their Health Insurance Coverage because of Obamacare. For you 20-something year old Libs, that’s 52 with six zeros behind it.

These are American lives I am talking about. Not imaginary statistics.

On top of that revelation, it also came out yesterday that only 22% of uninsured Americans have visited the Obamacare Exchanges. In other words, and I’ll type s-l-o-w-l-y for any Liberals who may be reading this, 78% of the Americans whom Obama and the Democrats cited as the reason for the Federal Government to ruin the finest Healthcare System in the World, do not want it. Period.

Okay. so, if, as has been determined, Obama and The Democrat Braintrust knew from the start that millions of Americans would lose their Health Insurance, what is the purpose of Obamacare, and why did the President of the United States and his minions in his Administration, Congress, and the Media lie, over and over again, about how positively perfect and wonderfully wonderful Obamacare would be?

Two words, one hyphen: Single Payer.

The Democrats have always, desperately, wanted Uncle Sugar to run Americans Healthcare Industry, just like the old Soviet Union, and present-day Communist China. They want to be in charge of our lives from cradle to grave, making life or death decisions for American Families. Stories are already coming out concerning Americans with Terminal Cancer, who are losing their Health Insurance coverage. Do you believe that Obamacare will help them? it won’t if they can not afford it, or get through the Government Bureaucracy in time for life-saving medical treatment. And, even if they do receive treatment in time, Obamacare cuts off paying for the treatment of Cancer at the age of 76.

So sorry. Here’s the book. here’s the phone. See ya later. You’re on your own.

For all of the Petulant President’s platitudes, Obamacare has about as much to do with “duty and Humanity” as the classic Three Stooges short.

Calling Dr. Howard…Dr. Fine…Dr. Howard…

And, unlike that movie short, featuring “The Boys”, there is nothing funny about Obamacare, at all.

In fact, it’s a National Tragedy.

Until He Comes,







Drone Wars: The Adventures of Rand Skywalker

April 24, 2013

rand paulSitting at my command console yesterday, (actually, my office desk) I felt a disturbance in the force, as if thousands of Paulians screamed in unison for just one brief moment, and then, there was silence…stunned silence.

Young Skywalker (Senator Rand Paul) stated that these were the Drones he had been looking for:

I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.

A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away (actually it was right here in America, but I’ve always wanted to write that)…

Young Skywalker stood on the Senate Floor and said,

I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.

His fellow citizens of the Republic (including me) cheered his courage in taking such a heroic stand.

But, now…The Empire (of Paulians) Strikes Back!

I am stunned by Rand’s statement,” reads a blog post on the Daily Paul, one of the largest Ron Paul fan sites. “Unmanned killers in our skys O.K.??? Really? Get away from the Neocons and war mongers Rand, their arrogant and self-righteous air is rotting your brain.”

“How cute. The Politician emerges,” wrote Paladin69, a user on

“I disagree with shooting first and asking questions later,” added forum administrator Josh Lowry.

“The hell with arresting him I guess,” wrote user The Gold Standard sarcastically. “Just fire a missile at him and move on to the next mundane.”

Reddit’s brand of libertarian politics also repelled Paul’s hypothetical. “A missile into the storefront seems like dramatically excessive force,” wrote Reddit user Ohyeahthatsright. “Rand then seems to be supporting the militarization of police in their use of ‘tools’. I thought he was against the ‘police state.'”

Other libertarian-leaning commentators, such as the American Conservative’s Jordan Bloom, gave Paul more credit. “Paul wasn’t as clear as he should have been,” he writes. “It seems like he’s trying to describe a firefight-type situation in which the cops are forced to neutralize a thief robbing a liquor store, but the way he actually describes it sounds far more innocuous.”

Today’s flap is not the first he’s had with his father’s powerful online fan base, and it surely won’t be the last. But by all accounts, his principled filibuster greatly rejuvenated his credibility with libertarians following his heretical endorsement of Mitt Romney during the presidential election. With today’s remarks, he appears to have chipped away at that newly gained goodwill.

This is not the first time Young Skywalker has irritated the Paulians, who so faithfully followed his father, Paulian Skywalker, even after he morphed into Darth Paulnut, after serving several terms in that wretched hive of villainy  known as Washington, DC.

On the historic stardate of 6/7/2012, young Rand Skywalker threw his support behind Obi Wan MittRomney, in his quest to be the leader of the Republic, becoming a traitor in the eyes of Darth Paulnut’s loyal phalanx of followers. They spoke out in protest to the leader of the Paulian Empire:

“Rand is dead to me,” wrote, Ruffusthedog at the Daily Paul, a heavily-visited pro-Paul website. “He should have never done this.” “Rand Paul is a sell out,” user Alxnz exclaimed. “He just lost my vote in 2016.” “All he had to do was not open his mouth,” wrote user Conalmc. Others even took their anger out on Ron Paul himself. “What will it be Old Man Ron? Will you be forever remembered as the leader in the greatest liberty movement since 1776, or will you go down as Benedict Arnold incarnate,” threatened lionsuar7788. “We will never vote for Romney or your flimsy son.

“”What the heck! If Ron Paul supports/endorses Romney next I will forever lose faith in change and the belief that there are still individuals out there that think for themselves and want to strive for true Liberty,” wrote Ran at

It is widely acknowledged that young Skywalker is souping up his Millenium Falcon, in preparation for a lengthy trip to the outer most reaches of the American Galaxy, in an epic quest to become the leader of the Republic.

Perhaps the young Jedi believes that by showing the conviction to stand up to evil, in both that most wretched hive of villainy, Washington, DC, and throughout the American Galaxy, as well, then the good citizens of the Republic, will view him as a promising leader.

However, if the young Jedi wishes to be the leader of Republic, he must, at all times, remember the element that powers the Force of the Republic: Freedom.

For, without Freedom, our Republic would be just another Evil Empire.

And, as Benjamin Franklin wrote,

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

May The Force, that is the love and protection of Jesus Christ, be with you.

Until He Comes,


Obama Sworn In. Continues Campaigning.

January 22, 2013

obamakingInauguration Day is over. Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) is now President of these United States…again. But, is he Chief Executive…or Chief Campaigner? reports that

Obama, who won a second term by defeating Republican Mitt Romney after a bitter campaign, will now face many of the same problems that dogged his first four years: persistently high unemployment, crushing government debt and a deep partisan divide. The war in Afghanistan, which Obama is winding down, has dragged on for over a decade.

He won an end-of-year fiscal battle against Republicans, whose poll numbers have continued to sag, and appears to have gotten them to back down, at least temporarily, from resisting an increase in the national debt ceiling.

And Obama faces a less-dire outlook than he did when he took office in 2009 at the height of a deep U.S. recession and world economic crisis. The economy is growing again, though slowly.

But he still faces a daunting array of challenges.

Among them is a fierce gun-control debate inspired by a school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, last month, a tragedy he invoked in his speech.

He said America must not rest until “all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.”

Obama’s appeals for bipartisan cooperation will remind many Americans of his own failure to meet a key promise when he came to power – to act as a transformational leader who would fix a dysfunctional Washington.

His speech was light on foreign policy, with no mention of the West’s nuclear standoff with Iran, the civil war in Syria, dealings with an increasingly powerful China or confronting al Qaeda’s continued threat as exemplified by the recent deadly hostage crisis in Algeria.

But Obama said: “We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully … We will support democracy from Asia to Africa; from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom.”

U.S. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who had declared in 2010 that his top goal was to deny Obama re-election, congratulated the president and expressed a willingness to work together, saying a second term “represents a fresh start.”

But some Republicans responded skeptically. “It was a very, very progressive speech, to put it in the best possible light,” said Republican strategist Rich Galen. “He’s not running for election anymore.”

But, Rich…what if that is all he knows how to do?

Back n November 28, 2012, as the fight over the Fiscal Cliff and Debt Ceiling was heating up, mediaite .com published the following insight:

Campaigning is comfortable territory for politicians and it is an especially cozy place for President Obama to occupy – he is an extraordinary campaigner and has spent the majority of his political career on the trail seeking one or the other public office. But is this an effective tool for governing? One need only look at Obama’s accomplishments in his first term to determine that it is not.

The president did not need to campaign to pass the stimulus act – his party’s electoral mandate after the 2008 elections was broad enough and the financial crisis so dire that virtually any measure the president advocated for would have been passed. The president did, however, need to push hard to pass his health care reform law – a program which remains deeply unpopular and whose future is forever in doubt.

The only reassurance that Democrats who support the Affordable Care Act have that the law will not be repealed (more likely, dramatically amended) by a future Republican administration or GOP-dominated Congress is that broad entitlement programs is rarely repealed after it is fully enacted because vulnerable members of the public become dependent on those programs. Those who hold this view cite the legislative accomplishments of President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” to support this thesis. But Democrats who idolize Johnson and seek parallels between the 36th president and the 44th have few to choose from.

Johnson was a famously passionate negotiator and a dogged pursuer of legislative compromise – so long as ultimate goals were agreed to at the end of the day. The tails of his tireless efforts to strike deals between members of his party and Republicans in Congress (some of whom he had better relationships with) remain legendary.

Numerous accounts, notably those of reporter Bob Woodward in The Price of Politics, suggest that Obama is more likely to alienate his opponents in a tense negotiation than to win them over. Woodward noted that Vice President Joe Biden was the administration’s link to Republican members of Congress when several debt reduction commissions were convened in Obama’s first term. Given the vice president’s demeanor during the 2012 campaign, and his concerns for his own political future, it is unlikely that Biden can serve in such a role in Obama’s second term.

An executive in the White House would not attempt to strike compromise by directing his supporters to harangue his Congressional opposition through Facebook posts and Twitter-based guilt trips. Such tactics are impediments to real compromise, but these are the tools of Obama’s first resort.

Republicans have signaled their willingness to compromise by increasing tax rates on high earners and Democrats have begun to see the light on the need for dramatic reforms to entitlement programs. But the willingness to compromise does not automatically translate into a forthcoming bargain. The president seems set on making the political environment toxic and to make compromise less likely in order to secure the notion that he won a mandate in November.

It was announced recently that Obama for America was regrouping as Organizing for America, Obama’s very own bunch of Brown Shirts, who would provide”feet on the ground”  in an effort to intimidate and garner public support for Obama’s pet projects.

To recap…America has a divisive leader who has substituted perpetual campaigning for effective governance of our country, assisted by his own personal army of sycophantic supporters.

While the GOP Establishment are sounding like Neville Chamberlain.

Until He Comes,


Obama: The Murder of 4 Americans “Not Optimal”, #BenghaziGate Continues

October 19, 2012

Our nation’s Commander-in-Chief made a pompous, callous remark last night, regarding the death of 4 Americans, including a United States Ambassador, at the hands of Muslim Terrorists in Libya, while making a Campaign Appearance on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show on Comedy Central.

The Daily Mail has the details:

President Barack Obama, during an interview to be shown on Comedy Central, has responded to a question about his administration’s confused communication after the Benghazi attack, by saying: ‘If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.’

Obama was speaking to Jon Stewart of The Daily Show for a programme to be broadcast tonight.

Stewart, a liberal whose young audience is full of potential voters prized by the Obama campaign, asked the president about his handling of the aftermath of the Benghazi attack.

Ambassador Chris Stevens, diplomat Sean Smith and security men and former U.S. Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed by terrorists on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 – an attack that the White House initially blamed on a spontaneous protest about an anti-Islam movie made in California.

Stewart asked: ‘Is part of the investigation helping the communication between these divisions? ‘Not just what happened in Benghazi, but what happened within.

‘Because I would say, even you would admit, it was not the optimal response, at least to the American people, as far as all of us being on the same page.’

Obama responded: ‘Here’s what I’ll say. If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.’

He continued: ‘We’re going to fix it. All of it. And what happens, during the course of a presidency, is that the government is a big operation and any given time something screws up.

‘Whatever else I have done throughout the course of my presidency the one thing that I’ve been absolutely clear about is that America’s security comes, and the American people need to know exactly how I make decisions when it comes to war, peace, security, and protecting Americans.

‘And they will continue to get that over the next four years of my presidency.’

The word ‘optimal’ was first used by Stewart in the question. But Obama’s use of it, in a sound bite that could be used to portray him as somewhat casual about the deaths, lit up conservatives on Twitter after it was first reported in a White House pool report by Mike Memoli of the ‘Los Angeles Times’.

Obama’s slip could help Mitt Romney recover from an awkward moment in the presidential debate in Long Island, New York on Tuesday when he challenged Obama over whether he had initially characterised the Benghazi attack as terrorism.

Unfortunately for our dhimmi President, it was Islamic Terrorism.

According to Fox News, the barbarians in Libya did not exactly appreciate us being over there:

The attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi may have been part of a broader campaign to drive the U.S. and western presence — and particularly a growing CIA contingent — out of eastern Libya, two military sources told Fox News.

The Sept. 11 attack was preceded by hundreds of security incidents in Libya over the past year. Several of them involved western targets in the Benghazi area, which could indicate a pattern.

The attack on the U.S. Consulate in June 6 with an improvised explosive device, planted in the ledge of the perimeter wall, was described as a probing attack to measure the response. This incident, coupled with attacks on the International Red Cross and an RPG attack on the British ambassador’s convoy — after which the British withdrew — suggest a pattern to drive western influence from the region.

Further, it fits with a broader effort by the Al Qaeda affiliate and the militant group Ansar al-Sharia to establish an Islamic state in eastern Libya. The New York Times reported Thursday that Libyan officials have named Ansar al-Sharia leader Ahmed Abu Khattala as the commander of the attack.

Those militants are also capitalizing on the proliferation of weapons, including portable surface-to-air missiles called MANPADS, since the fall of the Qaddafi regime.

Former CIA Director Porter Goss said the idea that militants were trying to achieve the expulsion of western forces and diplomats from the region “is a very accurate assessment.”

He said they likely “are trying to create more sanctuary areas by pushing us out — our diplomats, our military.”

A representative with the CIA declined to comment for this report.

During the Second Presidential Debate, President Barack Hussein Obama looked into the camera and said,

The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.

And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families.

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.

Isn’t referring to the murder by Islamic Terrorists of 4 Americans as being “not optimal” while appearing on a show on Comedy Central in the last couple of weeks of a Presidential Re-election Bid, “playing politics”, Mr. President?

That seems to be all you do.

Lord knows, you wouldn’t want to upset “our Muslim allies”.

Smart Power! Foreign Policy Still Dangerous

September 10, 2012

I’m experiencing deja vu all over again as far as the barbarian country of Iran in concerned. They’ve got their finger on the trigger and the Obama Admniistration’s thinks they can negotiate with them. has the story:

A PR duel will be in two and a half weeks during the United Nations General Assembly discussions in New York between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The Iranian leader is expected to address the GA on the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur, while Netanyahu will speak the next day after arriving in the United States.

According to diplomatic sources in New York, the Iranian issue will be at the top of the agenda of the GA’s speakers, although there will be no votes during the 10-day assembly.

All Western leaders – including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Francois Holland – are expected to speak. Their presence in New York will pave the way for discussions on the Iranian issue.

US President Barack Obama’s address will open the GA on September 25, and the Iranian president’s address is expected the next day.

Obama will not wait in New York to meet with Netanyahu, especially in light of his pressing election campaign. The window of opportunities for a meeting between the American and Israeli leaders will thus open on September 28 in Washington.

In his address, Obama will be expected to demonstrate his leadership skills on the Iranian and Syrian issues, which will be at the focus of Western leaders’ discussions.

So, what is this “great leader” doing at the present about the outlaw state of Iran? The answer is not a whole heck of a lot.


The U.S. is “not setting deadlines” for Iran and still considers negotiations as “by far the best approach” to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.

While Clinton said in an interview yesterday that economic sanctions are building pressure on Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said last week the sanctions aren’t slowing Iran’s nuclear advances “because it doesn’t see a clear red line from the international community.”

Asked if the Obama administration will lay out sharper “red lines” for Iran or state explicitly the consequences of failing to negotiate a deal with world powers by a certain date, Clinton said, “We’re not setting deadlines.”

“We’re watching very carefully about what they do, because it’s always been more about their actions than their words,” Clinton said in the interview with Bloomberg Radio after wrapping up meetings at an Asia-Pacific forum in Vladivostok, Russia.

While the U.S. and Israel share the goal that Iran not acquire a nuclear weapon, Clinton said there is a difference in perspective over the time horizon for talks.

“They’re more anxious about a quick response because they feel that they’re right in the bull’s-eye, so to speak,” Clinton said. “But we’re convinced that we have more time to focus on these sanctions, to do everything we can to bring Iran to a good-faith negotiation.”

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has an different opinion (Thank God.) concerning this bunch of barbarians:

Mitt Romney used Sunday morning — prime TV time for politics — to depart from his core message about fixing the economy to tout a bare-knuckled foreign policy approach that would include “crippling sanctions” on Iran.

The Republican presidential nominee also was critical of President Obama’s handling of Iran, which is moving toward nuclear capability.

“The president hasn’t drawn us any further away from a nuclear Iran,” Romney said on NBC’s “Meet the Press. “That’s his greatest (foreign policy) failure.”

Romney said Obama’s mistake was coming into office trying to comprise with Iran’s leaders, instead of confronting them.

“I will have a very different approach with regard to Iran,” including “crippling sanctions that should have been put in place long ago,” he said.

Romney also said the greatest threat facing the United States and the rest of the world is a nuclear Iran.

Despite his criticism of the president, Romney acknowledged that Obama is moving closer to tougher sanctions and called his successful mission to kill Usama bin Laden a “great accomplishment.”

Romney’s remarks follows the Democratic National Convention speeches on the closing night in which Obama and others touted his foreign policy successes.

“Ask Usama bin Laden if he’s better off than he was four years ago,” said Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Romney didn’t limit his criticism Sunday to just Obama.

He said his fellow Republicans erred last summer when agreeing to automatic defense-spending cuts in exchange for an agreement to raise the country’s debt ceiling, which prevented the U.S. from defaulting on its borrowing obligations.

“I thought it was a mistake on the part of the White House to propose it,” Romney said. “I think it was a mistake for Republicans to go along with it.”

He also said the Obama administration broke the law recently by failing to provide specific details on how the proposed defense cuts would be implemented. The law was passed by Congress in July, then signed by the president.

“The president was responsible for coming out with specific changes they’d make to the defense budget,” Romney said. “He has violated the law that he in fact signed. The American people need to understand how it is that our defense is going to be so badly cut.”

Negotiations with barbarians only work when you negotiate from a position of strength. Ahmedinejad is watching how the Obama Administration is cutting our Defense Budget and cozying up to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Smart Power! is neither smart foreign policy nor negotiating from a position of power.

Come on, November 6th.

And, So It Begins…

August 31, 2012

Last night, Mitt Romney officially accepted the Nomination of the Republican Party as its Candidate for President. has the story:

Mitt Romney launched his fall campaign for the White House in a rousing Republican National Convention finale Thursday night, proclaiming America needs “jobs, lots of jobs” and promising to create 12 million of them in perilous economic times.

“Now is the time to restore the promise of America,” Romney said in excerpts released in advance of his prime-time speech to a nation struggling with 8.3 percent unemployment and the slowest economic recovery in decades.

He muted his criticism in the advance excerpts of President Barack Obama, his quarry in a close and unpredictable race for the White House.

“I wish President Obama had succeeded because I want America to succeed,” he said. “But his promises gave way to disappointment and division.”

(AP) Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney points to the photographer as he and vice presidential…

Full Image

“This isn’t something we have to accept ,” he said, appealing to millions of voters who say they are disappointed in the president yet haven’t yet decided to cast their votes for his Republican challenger.

“Now is the moment when we can stand up and say, ‘I’m an American. I make my destiny. And we deserve better! My children deserve better! My family deserves better! My country deserves better!”

Romney’s remarks came after other speakers filled out a week-long portrait of the GOP nominee as a man of family and faith, savvy and successful in business, savior of the 2002 Winter Olympics, yet careful with a buck. A portion of the convention stage was rebuilt overnight so he would appear surrounded by delegates rather than speaking from a distance, an attempt to soften his image as a sometimes-stiff and distant candidate.

“He shoveled snow and raked leaves for the elderly. He took down tables and swept floors at church dinners,” said Grant Bennett, describing Romney’s volunteer work as an unpaid lay clergy leader in the Mormon church.

Following him to the podium, Ted and Pat Oparowski tenderly recalled how Romney befriended their 14-year-old son David as he was dying of cancer. “We will be ever grateful to Mitt for his love and concern,” she said.

(AP) Michigan delegate Linda Lee Tarver from Lansing wipes away her tears during the Republican National…

Full Image

Beyond the heartfelt personal testimonials and political hoopla, the evening marked one of a very few opportunities any presidential challenger is granted to appeal to millions of voters in a single night.

The two-month campaign to come includes other big moments – principally a series of one-on-one debates with Democrat Obama – in a race for the White House that has been close for months. In excess of $500 million has been spent on campaign television commercials so far, almost all of it in the battleground states of Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado and Nevada.

Romney holds a fundraising advantage over Obama, and his high command hopes to expand the electoral map soon if post-convention polls in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and perhaps elsewhere indicate it’s worth the investment. In a speech that blended the political and the personal, Romney talked in his excerpts of the importance of the love he felt from his parents and that he and his wife Ann have sought to give their children and grandchildren.

“All the laws and legislation in the world will never heal this world like the loving hearts and arms of mothers and fathers,” he said.

As for Obama, he said, “Many Americans have given up on this president, but they haven’t ever thought about giving up. Not on themselves, Not on each other. And not on America.”

Back in 1980, when Ronald Wilson Reagan accepted the Republican Party’s Nomination, he spoke the following words:

Nearly 150 years after Tom Paine wrote those words, an American president told the generation of the Great Depression that it had a “rendezvous with destiny.” I believe that this generation of Americans today has a rendezvous with destiny.

Tonight, let us dedicate ourselves to renewing the American compact. I ask you not simply to “Trust me,” but to trust your values–our values–and to hold me responsible for living up to them. I ask you to trust that American spirit which knows no ethnic, religious, social, political, regional, or economic boundaries; the spirit that burned with zeal in the hearts of millions of immigrants from every corner of the Earth who came here in search of freedom.

Some say that spirit no longer exists. But I have seen it — I have felt it — all across the land; in the big cities, the small towns and in rural America. The American spirit is still there, ready to blaze into life if you and I are willing to do what has to be done; the practical, down-to-earth things that will stimulate our economy, increase productivity and put America back to work. The time is now to resolve that the basis of a firm and principled foreign policy is one that takes the world as it is and seeks to change it by leadership and example; not by harangue, harassment or wishful thinking.

The time is now to say that while we shall seek new friendships and expand and improve others, we shall not do so by breaking our word or casting aside old friends and allies.

And, the time is now to redeem promises once made to the American people by another candidate, in another time and another place. He said, “For three long years I have been going up and down this country preaching that government–federal, state, and local–costs too much. I shall not stop that preaching. As an immediate program of action, we must abolish useless offices. We must eliminate unnecessary functions of government…we must consolidate subdivisions of government and, like the private citizen, give up luxuries which we can no longer afford.”

“I propose to you, my friends, and through you that government of all kinds, big and little be made solvent and that the example be set by the president of the United State and his Cabinet.”

So said Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his acceptance speech to the Democratic National Convention in July 1932.

The time is now, my fellow Americans, to recapture our destiny, to take it into our own hands. But, to do this will take many of us, working together. I ask you tonight to volunteer your help in this cause so we can carry our message throughout the land.

Yes, isn’t now the time that we, the people, carried out these unkempt promises? Let us pledge to each other and to all America on this July day 48 years later, we intend to do just that.

I have thought of something that is not part of my speech and I’m worried over whether I should do it.

Can we doubt that only a Divine Providence placed this land, this island of freedom, here as a refuge for all those people in the world who yearn to breathe freely: Jews and Christians enduring persecution behind the Iron Curtain, the boat people of Southeast Asia, of Cuba and Haiti, the victims of drought and famine in Africa, the freedom fighters of Afghanistan and our own countrymen held in savage captivity.

I’ll confess that I’ve been a little afraid to suggest what I’m going to suggest — I’m more afraid not to — that we begin our crusade joined together in a moment of silent prayer. God bless America.

Today…32 years later…I’m making the same suggestion. God bless America.

And, so it begins…



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,717 other followers