All In For Romney

Bob ---


That's a very good question. My candidate is the most conservative nominee that can BEAT OBAMA.  That is central.  My going-in position has always been, up until quite recently, "all the way with Newt!"  For years Newt has pitched tremendously appealing sound bites worthy of in-depth consideration.  But he has a lot of liberal-policy baggage, personal baggage, and he is not charismatic --- a vacuous but
critical characteristic for a president. As a result, the rub comes
with Newt's inability to lure independent voters into his camp. It has been suggested strongly that independent voters will decide the next election.


Moreover, Newt is apparently so feared by REPUBLICANS in congress that they are mounting an "anybody-but-Newt" campaign. Also, the news media has a vested interest in promoting Newt (because he is less likely to beat Obama) and in keeping the Republican nomination stirred up and in turmoil for has long as possible --- don't underestimate the lame stream media's influence on the campaign.  As a result of the general
unease and numerous bags associated with Newt, I have thrown him overboard in preference for Mitt Romney -- today.


Today Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich seem to hold similar political positions and solutions for the future (but it's hard to tell in detail because of the absurd (and useless) format of the endless debates --- i.e., gottcha questions followed by 30-second, bumper-sticker answers).  Of course, I acknowledge the past liberal transgressions of both potential nominees.  Earlier this week Ann Coulter made a very compelling argument to Bill O'Reilly in favor of Romney and against Gingrich. That's probably what pitched me over the edge.  So today I'm all in for Romney --- today.  The future may change, and consequently, I, sir, may change my mind --- but I doubt it.  Have a look at one of Ann Coulter's comments for Romney and against Gingrich in the link below:


http://themoderatevoice.com/129298/omg-ann-coulter-endorses-mitt-romney/


May the best man win ---- AND DEFEAT OBAMA HUGE!  That's really the only thing that matters --- four more years of Obama and we won't have a U S of A as we have come to know it.  You know -- the land of the free and the home of the brave!  (And our children and grandchildren will pay one hell of a price.) That's certain.


That's all I got --- (and thanks for asking) ---


Tom

Just How Bad Is Obama?

You need to read the following before you vote in November, 2012!

Dr. Thomas Sowell writes the following:

The current Occupy Wall Street movement is the best illustration to date of what President Barack Obama's America looks like. It is an America where the lawless, unaccomplished, ignorant and incompetent rule.  It is an America where those who have sacrificed nothing pillage and destroy the lives of those who have sacrificed greatly.

It is an America where history is rewritten to honor dictators, murderers and thieves. 

It is an America where violence, racism, hatred, class warfare and murder are all promoted as acceptable means of overturning the American civil society.

It is an America where humans have been degraded to the level of animals: defecating in public, having sex in public, devoid of basic hygiene. 

It is an America where the basic tenets of a civil society, including faith, family, a free press and individual rights, have been rejected. 


It is an America where our founding documents have been shredded and, with them, every person's guaranteed liberties.

It is an America where, ultimately, great suffering will come to the American people, but the rulers like Obama, Michelle Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, liberal college professors, union bosses and other loyal liberal/Communist Party members will live in opulent splendor.

It is the America that Obama and the Democrat Party have created with the willing assistance of the American media, Hollywood, unions, universities, the Communist Party of America, the Black Panthers and numerous anti-American foreign entities.

Barack Obama has brought more destruction upon this country in four years than any other event in the history of our nation, but it is just the beginning of what he and his comrades are capable of.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is just another step in their plan for the annihilation of America.

Socialism, in general, has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.

Thomas Sowell


And just who is Thomas Sowell: Thomas Sowell (born June 30, 1930) is an American economist, social theorist, political philosopher, and author. A National Humanities Medal winner, he advocates laissez-faire economics and writes from a libertarian perspective. 

He is currently a Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. 

Sowell was born in North Carolina, but grew up in Harlem, New York. He dropped out of high school, and served in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War. 

He received a bachelor's degree from Harvard University in 1958 and a master's degree from Columbia University in 1959. In 1968, he earned his doctorate degree in economics from the University of Chicago. 

Dr. Sowell has served on the faculties of several universities, including Cornell and University of California, Los Angeles, and worked for "think tanks" such as the Urban Institute. Since 1980 he has worked at the Hoover Institution. He is the author of more than 30 books.

Endless Government Spending Ahead !

Lawmakers Proposed $1 Tril In New Spending Last Year

By JOHN MERLINE , INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 01/17/2012 08:05 AM ET

 View Enlarged Image

Despite endless talk of spending cuts and fiscal restraint in Washington over the past year, lawmakers continued to act as though the government doesn't spend nearly enough.

They introduced 874 bills in the House and Senate that would have boosted annual federal spending by more than $1 trillion if they'd all been signed into law, according to an analysis done for IBD by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation.

In contrast, lawmakers offered up just 215 bills to cut spending last year that would have reduced federal outlays by about half a trillion had they all been signed into law.

The analysis also found that for every dollar in cuts, lawmakers in the House proposed nearly $3 in spending hikes, and in the Senate $1.40 in hikes.

"Even at a time of massive deficits, Congress is still mostly occupied with pushing ideas to expand government spending," said Demian Brady, senior policy analyst at the NTUF, which has been tracking spending bills for more than 20 years through its BillTally project.

Brady notes that a big chunk of the spending tab comes from proposals by liberals in Congress that would transform the nation's health care into an entirely government-run "single payer" system. Absent those single-payer bills, the net effect of all the legislation introduced would be close to a wash.

The analysis also found a shift, at least, toward more spending cuts. "We are seeing more and bigger cut bills," said Brady, "and a smaller ratio of increase to cut bills than in last Congress."

That could change, however, should Democrats succeed in winning back control of the House in November.

The NTUF analysis found that congressional Democrats are by far the biggest spenders. Last year, 692 spending-hike bills had either all or majority Democratic sponsorship. Republicans, in contrast, sponsored just 126 such bills.

At the other end of the spectrum, GOP lawmakers introduced 172 bills that would have cut federal spending, compared with just 33 such bills offered up by Democrats.

Even if few of these bills were likely to make it all the way to the president's desk, they are a sign of the ongoing pressure in Congress to boost spending, budget experts say, since there is far more time and energy spent on proposals to expand government than to shrink it.

It's one reason budget caps have typically failed to hold in the past, and why proposed spending cuts often fail to materialize, these experts note.

For example, presidents routinely offer up dozens if not hundreds of programs they think should get the axe — President Clinton's 1995 budget had 115 of them — but few ever got acted upon and many show up on target lists year after year.

And in the past 50 years, annual inflation-adjusted spending on domestic programs — education, transportation, the environment, etc. — has declined just six times; and five of those years occurred during the Reagan administration.

As a result, spending on these programs as a share of GDP has climbed by more than 26% since 1962. That doesn't include spending on entitlement programs, which has seen its share of the economy nearly triple over those years.

Defense spending, in contrast, is not nearly as immune to spending cuts — the Pentagon's annual budget was cut in 19 of the past 50 years. And even with the recent buildup, defense spending as a share of the economy is about half what it was in 1962.

When President Obama introduced his budget last year, he made it clear that spending cuts were a critical part of getting federal deficits under control.

"All of us agree," he said referring to Democratic and Republican congressional leaders, "that we have to cut spending, and all of us agree that we have to get our deficits under control and our debt under control."

But unless that message sinks in on Capitol Hill, it's not clear that real, deep spending cuts will ever actually materialize.